Death_By_Pod

In respect to the Indonesian judicial system 20 years is very good, I would have thought more along the lines of 50-life. I hate how the media have sensationalised this trial as they attempt to make a mockery of the Indonesian justice system its very disrespectful and borderline racist. It has been made very clear that if you brought drugs into the country the maximum penalty is death but no one seems to realise that just because a good looking Australian (if she didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t look as nice I bet it wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have got the coverage it did get, this case is not unique) is caught and is acting innocent doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean she is. Every man and their dog knows to lock up their bags when travelling, serve's her right for not doing the most basic of precautions. Travelling to worse off countries with differing legal system is a risk that should be factored into to anyone's trip, sure the likelihood of getting in trouble with the law is low but if you do get in trouble donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t expect to be saved. The trade off with this is that you get everything cheaper and you are basically treated like a king (but dont expect the legal system to be as developed as ours). The case is prima facie (at first sight) and pretty much means that it is a sufficient case for trial, she was caught with it is pretty much guilty it is almost res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Unless there is some explicit and hard evidence for why she shouldn't be convicted, she is guilty. So what if her bag was checked in as 4.1kg (assuming that is on the luggage label and not 'her word'), wouldn't it be safer to get the drugs in the bag after it's checked in that way it is going through one less security check. The baggage handler who was caught for drug smuggling was caught in relation to cocaine smuggling through Sydney airport; different drug, they probably donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even deal with anything other then cocaine. She would not get more for it in Australia as Australian hydro is better quality and more powerful then the Bali variety, she would fetch a premium for selling it over there to the tourists. Fingerprint check would be pointless as it would confirm that indeed her prints are on the bag (since it is her bag after all), further more it would have been fiddled with by authorities by the time it would have been sent for a test (forensic testing is not considered over there as much as it is here).

Wow a lot of you people brought into SonyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s marketing ploy. They topped themselves this generation with a 2.18TFLOP processor (which would make it the 87th fastest computer in the world; lol) which fits between: Yeah right... And the killzone 2 trailer was the biggest pre-render in the world. -Presence of ambient occlusion -Radiosity (even more advanced than ray tracing) -Massive, MASSIVE polycount -View distance -Advanced fluid simulation -The need for a couple gigs of texture memory, at the very least. If this is being rendered in real time, Pixar, ILM, Dreamworks and every other CG house should throw out their multimillion dollar render-farms and buy a couple PS3s instead, huh?!? Again, there is nothing at all that suggests this was rendered in real time or on a PS3 at all. For example, Real-time ray tracing in Quake 3 (this is less CPU intensive than radiosity) was programmed by uni students and it took a 20 1800+ AthlonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to render it at 20 FPS! http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~sidapohl/egoshooter/ The cell processor is not something revolutionary, it can't even do graphics. It was originally planned to be a general processor but later Sony was forced to buy an NVIDIA GPU because of cell's poor performance. If you think the Xbox 360 will do over 1TFLOP youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re an idiot as well, but at least Microsoft showed in game footage of what the console is truly capable of. Early comparisons of the two consoles have been made http://www.majornelson.com/2005/05/20/xbox-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4/ which has been posted by the head programmer of Xbox Live. It's good to take this with salt as for the final time; no one knows anything until they are released.

I don't know but most of you guys on this forum over react about smoking. Sure it's not good for you but if you take a look at it from a global scale smoke does not contribute as much as industrial waste (i.e. pollution) take a look around and realise that everything you do is causing harm to yourselves: incomplete burning of hydrocarbons and coal (leading to things like photochemical smog), using pesticides, toxic wastes and so on. Something so good such as eating lots of fish when your pregnant is now considered dangerous and great care should be taken in which fish you eat. In context smoking is not as bad as it seems, we are all going to die one way or another and smoking to smokers brings greater benefits then they do costs; most of them are happy and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what it should be about. Smoking is only one tiny piece of the pollution pie and itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the part that is getting the most attention. I would also like to point out (as a previous poster stated) that genetics play a part in the susceptibility of cancer and other diseases, donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go thinking the moment that you breath in smoke you are contributing to your death as some people are almost immune to it and others donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t take it so well (such as people asthma). These strengths and weaknesses in our genetic code are what make us human and should be celebrated instead of controlled.

That's quite funny, I like it. Ok, we're going back to the big bang here. There was just atoms. No organic matter possible for the building of life - i.e. no protein. At the moment, there are many different kinds of proteins, the most simple one that we know about has over 600 amino acids in it (they're not all different, it's just a special pattern). I had to study this for my philosophy, so I should remember it. A bloke called Harold Morowitz was commissioned by NASA to work out the minimum amount of amino acids required for a protein to form (and hence, form life). I suppose they wanted to know so they know what they're looking for on Mars. Before I go further, the generally accepted scientific/mathematic odds for nigh-on impossible are 1/10^15. That's pretty low. A 1/10^50 chance is so low that it wouldn't happen in 15 billion years (similar to the way we work out the odds of a dragon drop, 1/256 from steels, or whatever). Morowitz worked out that the odds of this protein forming from randomly moving, joining, separting (etc) atoms is 1/10^236. I'd say it's fairly unlikely that life formed out of the random atoms involved in the big bang. The big bang can account for the universe, and evolution can account for life since it started, but there is a huge hole in between these. And don't start going on about the 'God of gaps'. I don't believe the big bang happened, and I don't believe that evolution got us anywhere either (though it does work today, even though it's minute). Anyway, a couple of you seemed anxious about how I disproved the big bang. I thought of this one by myself after watching a program with Stephen Hawking on. I've put it to the head of physics and all the physics students in my sixth form, as well as the entire philosophy class. I also tried this out on another forum, on Ferion.com (space-type game) None has yet come up with a a sucessful answer. My reply depends on the constant of time. Most believe that time is a constant. However, the Big Bang teaches (at least, I was taught it all those years ago) that it was the start of time. That's probably untrue, but I blame it on having a crappy physics teacher in Year 9. Anyway. You know how in movies or books, time supposedly stops, but some can still move (like in X-Men2)? Well, time hasn't stopped. As shown by the fact that some can still move (yet those who were frozen do not remember anything of that tiime, as far as they're concerned, there was no gap in time), our perception of time is based on movement. If everything in the universe (including the microscopic waves and whatnot) were to suddenly stop moving, we would have no idea. They could stop for as long as they want, and we wouldn't realise. When it all restarted, we would carry on as usually, with absolutely no idea. Typing this could have taken 150 years if time kept pausing, but as far as I know it's taken me 10 minutes. So how does this relate to the big bang? If time is a constant, then why did the dense cluster of atoms that started it all choose to expand/explode then? The TV show I mentioned earlier seeked to 'teach' how the dense cluster of matter suddenly started expanding. Apparently, there was another form of matter that, instead of attracting matter through gravity, it repelled other matter, thus forcing the ball of matter apart. Luckily for Stephen Hawking, this matter then decayed incredibly quickly, leaving on background radiation. As far as I'm concerned that part holds even less water than the rest of the argument. But, if it was that matter, then why did it start expanding then? Why didn't it start expanding 100 years previously? Why did it even expand at all? Now, I am NOT placing a 'God of the gaps' here, as you accused me of earlier. I neither know nor care how God created the world, the point is that we are here, and have a job to do on this Earth before we leave it (no, I'm not talking about 'God has a plan', I mean the Great Commission - a job given to every human on this Earth). What concerns me is why this theory (which can be disproved) is taught as solid fact, while all religious theories are 'theory'. And I'm serious about that. When we did evolution, we were told during the teaching that it was a theory. GCSE exams, no mention of the word 'theory'. It was treated as fact. With the Big Bang, we were told 'This is how the world was made, anything else is bollocks'. Again, no mention of the 'theory' of the big bang. In RE, when we did Hindus they specified several times on the exam paper about it being a 'theory' (e.g. how does the Hindu theory of creation compare with...). Thats what annoys me most about this. Now, going all the way back to the first page, and the actual question. Was religion made by man? To anwer this I shall use the film Dogma, a brilliant;y underestimated film in my opinion. In it, the 13th Disciple (Chris Rock) says something like - "That's the problem with religion. They took a good idea, and built a belief structure around it." Meaning: the basics about Jesus being Christ, Muhammed being the prophet etc are all fine. The problem is when religion is created around it. Though in this instance he was referring to religion as in the Dogma of the Catholic Church (the order of service, how they elect the Pope etc), instead of religion in general. So maybe Dogma wasn't as good an answer as I though it was. Oh well... Harold Morowitz's book where that quote was taken was about the forces of thermodynamics force the surface of the world to evolve chemical complexity. When was this book written; 1968, I would actually question the books relevance rather concerning the calculation of the probability rather then taking it for fact. The whole quotation on the probability goes against the author's feelings of something from nothing; he just feels that it was not random chance but chemical complexity produced by the star. If the big bang and evolution did not happen then a god would have to create something similar in order for us to be here; if that were that case there would be almost no difference between them, the major difference would be the ability to describe them without having to resort calling them miracles. Giving the big bang, evolution and re-incarnation the same definition of theory is a joke. The big bang and evolution are 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena' (i.e. Scientific theory) and reincarnation is 'A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment' which does not necessarily have to be a fact; two very different things. Time is relative to one another (i.e. the theory of relativity states that; things are measured relative to each other and not relative to some universal clock; that's the reason why when you travel around the galaxy near the speed of light you will not age as much as your relative, who in fact would most likely be long dead); time started at the big bang in the sense that there was 'something there' to measure relative to one another, if nothing exists then how could you determine it from one point in time to the next; it's just impossible. I'm not saying the big bang is the start of time; it is just the start of 'our' universe. Things generally move slower because they have less energy (quite literally the measure of kinetic energy); when energy has spread out too thinly (due to the laws of thermodynamics) we can not live in the same way as we do now; we will have to deal with a much slower rate of information movement where typing a post in a forum would take a million years in our view but to these futuristic being it would be nothing out of the ordinary. (It is theorised at this point quantum weirdness will become common place and that all sorts of things could happen, including formation of new universes etc. due to the fact we will be doing things over a greater time length) I think the show was trying to describe a Higgs field; I won't try to explain it in depth because I'm no expert but to put it shortly it is a field which has negative pressure and this negative pressure causes gravity to repel (the magnitude was huge and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what caused inflation, but has rapidly decayed to a smaller value) rather then attract and it still does repel which is what is meant to be causing the universe to expand. The term exotic matter is just a name, no different to the way negative numbers are exotic (ever seen -2 apples or -100 people in a crowd?) or the way radiation and the way atoms are glued together is different to light and magnetism. The Higgs Boson (The messenger of the field, the same way light [photon] is the messenger for electrical and magnetic fields) has not yet been detected yet as it is quite heavy but the next particle accelerator should be capable of detecting is coming online around 2007, if we find it; it will be a great moment in science as this sneaky particle has been undetectable for almost 40 yearÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and we may finally have the technology to uncover it.

To expand on that, you can create particles so long as energy is conserved; the universe will randomly produce pairs of particles with opposite properties (say and electron and a positron), pretty much matter can come in and out of existence which is called quantum fluctuation. If these fluctuations occur next to a black hole and say a particle fell in (in this case the positron) the positron will annihilate with the singularity to reduce it in energy (and therefore the radius of the hole, as the radius is in proportion to the energy). This means that a particle was released (as well as any particles along the edge of the back hole as it reduced in size), this called HawkingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s radiation. Thanks hug for the evolution thing, I couldn't be bothered responding to such an abortion of a post.

Again whenever this kind of stuff pop's up, there is always scientific miss-information. Firstly there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting a beginning of the universe (It does not prove the big bang theory in itself but it is a strong indicator): 1. Cosmic Background Radiation - This is the part in time where light could move around the universe freely (it was too hot beforehand), it is basically an image of temperature distribution near the beginning of the universe which the big bang theory successfully made predictions for. 2. Hubble's Law - Basically shows that stars around us are all moving away, therefore showing that there must be a beginning if you reverse time. 3. Ratio of Primordial Elements - The big bang model can successfully tell you how much hydrogen, helium and other small atoms there are in the universe that otherwise could not be explained. 4. Universe Evolution - The big bang can describe the types and distribution of galaxies over time. These are 4 very big things that the model can describe and anyone who thinks that it is flat-out wrong must realise that it has predicted all of our cosmology so far. This also shows that there is an age of the universe which is around 14 billion years which is in agreement of observations; also destroying the creationistÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s argument without having to talk about evolution.

You don't quite seem to comprehend that scientific theory = fact (seriously look it up in the dictionary). What would you propose our current universe came from, it had to come from somewhere and the big bang theory is quite plausible actually; please propose how you can disprove it as no one I know have been made aware of any potential problems in the theory. Even as an athiest that is very scientific, i can tell you it is not fact. Notice the Theory attached to the end of the big bang... Which means that it is not been proven, but is thought of. Until it is dissproven, we will continut using it. Also, i doubt that that anyone on this forum can disprove, or prove that the theory is fact or fiction, so no one say that you can. Pretty much all theories contain, facts, laws and tested hypothesis otherwise it would be impossible to prove or disprove. Also I would like to note it is impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty as there is no one to tell you the answers after you had a go at the problems therefore the big bang theory remains fact at this present time and that's all that really matter's. Another viewpoint is that you should treat theories as fact as they provide explanations that show no practical deviation from observed values. Hey I better stop using newtons equations for gravity because they are not accurate enough, but for most situations it suits just fine. Maybe we should start worrying about the universe as electromagnetic theory or even atomic theory could be wrong and in 10 years propagation of em waves will be impossible and atomic structure will become unstable and will be unable to form atoms; no really. Edit: You must agree that big bang theory and observation have established the basic elements of the theory.

You don't quite seem to comprehend that scientific theory = fact (seriously look it up in the dictionary). What would you propose our current universe came from, it had to come from somewhere and the big bang theory is quite plausible actually; please propose how you can disprove it as no one I know have been made aware of any potential problems in the theory.

Exactly, I post a legitimate view of what a future political viewpoint would be (your telling me youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve never heard of government mind control and ownership scenario's) and then I get a very hostile reception, I defend the idea a bit and then it turns from constructive criticism to arguing, that's why IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve stopped posting because it seems indyfan will keep going until he wins the 'internet argument' without noticing flaws in his own posts. So either we get back to talking about the future (as I won't be continuing this in public) or this post dies.

It is not direct democracy if you are being psychologically brainwashed to buy products; this is being done at such a young age now that children will grow up becoming loyal to a brand that was advertised to them as a pre-teen. You can't tell me that businesses throw million's (and billion's) on advertising to sell product's it isn't innocent buy 'x' like it was in the 60's or earlier they are designed by marketing consultants who in turn go to psychologists to find out what colours and patterns and styles will penetrate a mind the furthest; how is that fair for small business and individuals? BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION RUINED THE ECONOMY AND THEY BLAMED IT ON CAPITALISM. STUPIDITY ON PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTS US FROM BEING FREE. How about social and ethical problems, things you can't throw money at? If you hired someone to be your sexual slave and servant would that be ok; on one hand she/he may need the money but on the other you can be mistreating them and taking advantage of them. How about luring someone to your property with money and then killing them; they are on your property so why can't you do what you want? Governments are here to police such problems, things that capitalism can not survive on itself.

People own what they want to own; however the government will tussle you out of company investment. You have a wage with that you can buy land, buy a TV and food no one is really stopping you from buying what you want. However it will be useless owning a share in a government majority owned business as it will not be running for a profit and creating new businesses will be basically funded by the government so that it will be majority owned. Actually jobs will pretty much continue the way it will, new jobs will open up as they are required; if people want to get into a saturated field then they will need to compete for it; not only does it remove stagnation it also differentiates between the people who really want to do it and the others that can be bothered; this will further be pushed by maintaining a limit on the number of university entries (much like now). Plus a system where 95% of people want to do one type of job is unrealistic as there will always be people who want 'simple' jobs without big responsibility and there are so many specialised jobs there is no way that everyone would suddenly want to become microbiologists for example. Actually you are right about the designation of jobs however this is more futuristic then my framework; however such a proposition would only be made possible with the mastering of genetics and psychology, such people will be genetically and mentally designed for jobs; if you were thought you loved your job, where you lived, what you had and thought you had the best life, actually you lived in a state of total happiness then what would make you question your society? It may seem strange to you but what would you say it is happening now, it works that well that even this entire conversation was pre-determined through genetics behind a secret lab which we will never see; you really can't argue against this since all I can say to your response was we were genetically/mentally trained to overlook 'x' inconsistency.

The initial step would be domestic investment in business (which comes from taxes) these profits will in turn create more investment until the market is cornered and they basically control everything after which it can start to build on it's social framework; this process is not expected to be short it can take decades. Investment is derived from taxes which will means the shares are solely owned by the government and dividends used to reinvest (the initial investment will have to eat into the budget of other departments such as defence but after enough investment the shares should be enough to sustain further investing without outside support; unless you want to acceleration acquirement of shares). Sure it can be difficult to expand without loan's you can use them to speed it up but it can be done. I wouldn't think government bonds would be a problem for initial investment (government bond's are generally low return but offer the highest security) as these types of bond's donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t encourage big investment (they just offer the person with a return in line with growth) as the risk and return are very low. Although I have not gone into number with everything (as it would take forever for someone who is only really talking his opinion/doing it for a hobby) but logically it should be possible with or without loans. A government's responsibility to provide jobs is in proportion to the amount of domestic business they own. When the plan first starts out (and almost to complete buy out) everything will continue as is since it is almost impossible to help people out if you are giving money everywhere (buying business, public works and looking after everyone). When the government has a complete grasp on the market then they can make good paying jobs for everyone how can they do this; people will be spending their wages on government owned business, the local supermarket, the bank, electric company you name it so most of the wage will be flowing back to the government and money that people decide to save will be compensated by the overhead tacked on to the cost of providing the service (if it costs 0.20 to make a loaf of bread then they may charge 0.22 or 0.30 to help compensate for people saving their wages). DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t forget wages grow/fall in line with the cost of living so wages will eventually fall to small amounts but the buying power of that wage will be greater then current wages. Foreign capital can be sourced by exporting excess good's (which could be one way for job's to be filled) or selling technology. Since the buying power is increasing so would the value of the dollar (I'm not saying the government will be gaining/losing money from these fluctuations, I'm just stating this to get you thinking about what the price of goods will look like; smaller numbers like in the 1950's). That example of the USSR is quite an ineffective way to supply job's; I was thinking along the lines of building complexes that don't rely on being in specific locations (call centre's, research labs etc) and building them (as they are needed) in towns where employment is low. As a result this could stimulate further job production and opportunities (like shops and services); this means that people will have a job doing things that are needed and have some use unlike the USSR case. An important thing that is missing in capitalism is responsibility and that comes automatically with any rights ('freedom' and the ability to spend large amounts of it). If you are free to do anything with your property and money then why are there so many laws preventing you to do such freedom's?

Not really taking any freedoms away, the government buy's back all domestically owned companies and restructure them to better serve the community. The only big freedom I would see being taken away is the ability to open any business you like (if you had the money to do so); I see creating new businesses would be sending a proposition to the government with the benefits and feasibility (much like a proposal to a bank for a new business loan); I guess you could reward the person with giving them management powers (or paid under a different title) of the place if they show they can look after it to promote people finding new opportunities to better the area. Could you be a little more specific with what freedom's it would be breaking? The only thing that makes people not equal in the system is what they get paid and that is just a return on the time it takes people to learn a new skill and apply it or an incentive for people to learn skills for job's that need filling. I have no idea where you come up with where you find capitalism means equality; the more money you have the better you get treated simple as that. There is no way someone with no money can get given a fair chance at making it big, they just don't have the start up capital to compete in modern capitalism which is dominated by large corporation which pick out the best opportunities and fund them with their huge cash reserves, leaving the common person with the lesser (and usually poorer in return) opportunities. I stated in my original post that my framework has direct democracy (something America does not have). Basically I would imagine there would be building where you could either change your preference to another person to lead (there would be minimum terms to prevent people from constantly getting new people to lead), read up on candidates and the ability to submit a candidate (provide a vision statement and all the likes). The government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have control of democracy and if they tried to change it they would be getting trouble from its people (look in history you will see any radical change towards totalitarianism is met by protest or the seizure of parliament to enact a new government). My frame work is not a move away from capitalism, it removes the gigantic profits and replaces them with smaller incentives (which you don't need if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re doing a job you enjoy) and sends the large returns to be used to make products cheaper, increase research, increase public works and in general provide a fairer system for everyone.

Anyone arguing that humans are biologically equal is crazy; easiest example people have different colour skin so they must be biologically different. We are not talking about biology we are talking about social equity stop trying to find an easy flame. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m glad you brought up my social frameworkÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâflawsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as I can explain how it would work in further detail but would fill up a book but since you requested it IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m more then happy to provide how it can work. My framework takes capitalistic ideas as well as social ones (such as the idea of businesses, currency and wages as it needs to accommodate with other countries frameworks); people still get paid wages and businesses still compete with each other. People are motivated by choosing a profession they enjoy and doing it well or if they mind as much they can select one of the many provided by the government (boxes need to be filled, supermarket checkoutÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s staffed etc) knowing that the government can provide a wage were you can live. If the profession is popular then you are going to still compete with others to get a job but you can always fall back on job vacancies that the government provides. Wages may be slightly higher for some jobs but that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t matter too much when everything is cheaper and the government makes sure everyone is used. An incentive to work; the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t provide on going support for people who are physically and mentally able to work, sure there are situations where you can qualify for subsistence payments for a few months but after that if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put in then you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t put out. As long as the government can provide you with a job to suit youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re physical and mental handicaps then there is no reason why you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be working or trying to work. However if they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you then you probably are not in a position to work and should be supported until you are able to or you eventually pass away. Researchers still have motivation to invent as they will be helping themselves get better technology and more job opportunities as well as helping others benefit from the technology maybe even getting a small bonus for a breakthrough. The same system for grants will apply so you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t go off and research stuff that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a real purpose. I hope this clears things up a little ask more questions if you wish.

But what you forget to mention is that the company is paying the workers award wages which barely cover the living expenses while they are producing widgets that are sold at extreme mark-upÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s which is passed back on to the rich investor; where is the social responsibility in that? The company makes money for the people who don't really need it off the labour of the poor people. Now you say the company is giving the person the job but if the company was run by the government for the benefit for the people then the profit will be going back as public spending, better working conditions and a more effective social support. Hang on if these companies were run by a government wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t people just be spending their wages to the government company and therefore be spent back on them? Then a way to combat this endless cycle could be to sell these good's at cost + overhead which will just be pumped back as wages and public works; this means that a hell of a lot of thing's just came affordable to the working poor and the small overheads they collect can be sent back to the government for reallocation after a certain accruement. This system benefits everyone except the very rich; which in effect removes the thing that makes them rich (investing in a company which uses economies of scales to pump of products at excessive mark-ups), however there is one thing that they can't control democracy. If the American government put out a binding referendum (which is a problem since there is no provision for a national Referendum in America) asking if they should "Corner the American economy and when that is achieved return the profits as lower costing goods and better working conditions", most poorer people (and some coasting on living comfortably) would vote for the motion, which in turn would most likely exceed that of a super majority (2/3's of the vote) and be enacted; direct democracy that rich people could not stop. The black box comment is what I refer to most investors that use investing as a secondary source of income; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically inspect each company and their policies they just throw money at some investment firm and expect more to come back hence the investment firm could be considered a black box (you know what goes in and out but not the processes inside it). I understand the reasoning behind a public company however if all of this was run by a not for profit body (for e.g. the government) then the pooled resources would be so huge that financial budgets would be eased and any company that would need to grow due to demand would have their finances looked after (and in turn make a return back to the government and therefore the people). Actually it I possible to have linear returns introduce a tax that grows in relation to the money you make leaving you with a flat % of return (Which will be kept slight above interest rates to attract investment in the first place). Cavemen didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a government body to regulate their trade. Sure there may be some sort of power play coming in if you hand over your economy to one body (the government) but thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s where democracy comes in (or direct democracy even) just vote out the power hungry party and replace it with a lesser one or if all else fails take back power by force. It's not communism it's a combination of both systems one which fail to realise that in ideal conditions it works and if enough law is written; the real world. Even if this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it to referendum it should be let out in public so it can get its chance in the spot light and create debate (which could in fact in turn help improve neglected policies such as social welfare). I mean most people didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care about PVS cases until the whole Terri Schiavo thing blew up recently; same deal here.

Why should it be disallowed? Because money does not come from nowhere, some people consider investing pretty black box; money in more money out but that money has to come from somewhere and most likely it is coming from the poor which your nation is struggling to deal with. Maybe it's because I have a socialist aspect to my living but also the belief that people should 'work' for their money, but this is not the case with investment as it get's easier over time (risk is greater spread with the more money you have). I think a return on investment over time graph should look linear rather then exponential (slugging the person more and more tax to benefit the poor they are 'stealing' from; in effect helping provide equality to all. But then again this is coming from a country that does not have 'free' health care). I just don't see why people think capitalism works when in fact a form of utilitarianism would be more effective (working to help each other would produce more synergy and as a result more stuff then any capitalist society could); the skimming of trillions of dollar's from economy only to be placed in the 'corporations' bank to add another zero to the balance to help the beyond rich is a waste of time and could be used to pretty much give everyone a good life. I don't think its a sin to earn from investing however the 'rewards' from associated risks are heavily outweighed; I could open a dozen food franchises and be set for life or buy undervalued floats that will rise as soon as they hit the markets (google for example, a pity I could of never attained a loan for such a venture. With all the hype going on you could have easily on the very worst of levels got a few dollars back per share but in this case the jump was insane) but why just do stuff you don't like in order to gain something which becomes meaningless when you die. My thinking is that the rewards (due to the huge profits and the lowering of quality of life for others) should not be as big as their associated risks. Actually I think I can get a pretty good life the way IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ am planning (a researcher, in physics of all places) sure I won't have millions of dollars but I should in theory have a home and be able to afford to have some electric gadgets (and who even knows I may even fulfil one of my long term dreams of building a small sound studio to make noise). I just don't see why people with 7-8 zero portfolioÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s can just let it accrue and not think about where it is coming from and how it can be better used to help society as a whole. The big difference is in opinion between you and me is our views of social framework; you have a pretty contemporary view (capitalism) and I have a futuristic view (utilitarianism). I may be stubborn about it but I do really think that making the greatest number of people happy should come before the happiness and wealth of one person and very few people could genuinely deny this statement.

Actually he was determined, something a lot of kids are missing these day's, they are thrown in a world where no one cares leaving them aimless; that and the fact Einstein had a deformed brain. Do you think that you got to university mean's that you beat the poverty cycle (just because you were brought up by red necks doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t automatically make you one, however if they treated you like one then it could not have helped); engineering? There are quite a few engineering courses where IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ am it's not exactly difficult to get into. Going to a university is half the battle to getting a decent income you need a fair bit of luck to get picked up by a good company that are willing to pay a little more for quality staff and hope they hit it big in order for you to get treated better. Even then you have still lost as the rich get richer by reinvesting their earnings; it's exponential (basically the longer you re invest the easier it gets, something that defies logic; almost seems like something comes from nothing after a while) the more you put in the more you get back like a run away train; that is something that should never be allowed.

Actually studies have shown human gene's have an equal effect as the environment so if you nurture a two people in a similar environment they will respond to the environment with similar effects. I.e. Take identical twins and place them in separate homes and they will adopt different mannerisms or adopt a child and they will pick up the new families mannerisms; pretty simple. So given equal opportunity most people will turn out to be quite similar in nature; of course if you have a child in a redneck family who do care about education and focus on getting them out as quickly as possible then they will turn out slower then others; on the other hand if you are well of and have a child who is spoilt then they will grow up relying on you and for the most of time when they are still adults. If you give equal access to everything (money, education, infrastructure and supportive/good parents) then you will notice that a large majority of the bad people will disappear; where I live most of the bad people live out west and that is due to (economics, lack of infrastructure and parents who just don't care) and are quite different to kids living on the north shore (mum and dad will send you through university and they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to worry about money or not getting what they want). The flow down effect does not work therefore capitalism does not work as an equitable social framework and that is a big problem wether you like it or not. I bet you are saying this because you are middle-upper class, white and are living in one of those planned neighbourhoods where the aim is too keep the 'bad' people out; look at the situation from another personÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view and you will quickly see why the system as it stands fails. Ohh and God would cry at the thought that all people are not equal so dwell on that fact considering (I'm assuming your American) your living in a predominantly Christian society.

Modern democracy is indeed a very new phenomenon in the world, as you said it's been around for only 100 years. Now let's think back in history... There is no such period where most people in the world would be able to choose their job, have equal rights and even a say in the running of the country. By the time the masses change their opinions about things, we'll be dead already. Have you thought of the possibility that it will be possible for you to live longer to see the future happen; medicine in the last 100 years has picked up from almost non existent to some really advanced work done on transplantation an synthesis of new body part's based on the person. I don't think living to at least 200 is far fetched.

Actually I disagree with you quite heavily on this since any war between 2 technologically capable countries will bring about mutually assured destruction (and with it a steep decline of living for other countries) and neither country will want to 'lose'. Technology is actually a deterrent for war rather then an instigator, you tell me that Japan retaliated in WW2 after the nukes were dropped. By the time industrialisation becomes a problem we will be able to alter chemical processes to less dangerous ones (all we need is energy to break up bond's of toxin's) e.g. http://www.climateark.org/articles/2000/4th/carexdev.htm (can't find the original source for the article but this is a copy and paste). The Plague and World Wars are very different in context to the modern world; did the British have any idea about disease and how it worked when the plague occurred? Was there a strong sense of working things out before resulting to war in WW1 and 2; global economy, long range ballistic weaponry, long range air, space front's, nuclear weaponry? Nothing like the scale of World War 1 and 2 will ever happen again, the stakes are just too high for the aggressive nation in a matter of fact the only wars that will happen will be between 3rd world countries (countries without the resources that the first world has) or a first world attacking a rouge 3rd world (like the Iraq war); such wars have been going on indefinitely and the future will not be able to completely stamp them out. However there is one thing that you seem to be forgetting; changes in social thinking. You can see how different we think compared to when the church ruled, the thought that women are not equal was with us as little as a 100 years age (women could not vote) and even now we are in a ethical debate over human biology (when we should kill people, abortion, stem-cell research etc.) and realistically the next question would be how can we make all these new breakthroughs (cures for cancer, medicine, information technology etc.) available for everyone; when people realise that we can still make a living while sharing our breakthroughs in science then we will be closer then global happiness then ever before. We just need to take things in small steps and 100 year's is ample time for hundreds of these small steps to be behind us and we are left at the top of the staircase.

Wow, a lot of misconceptions of science (makes me weep; really) The only reason why Chernobyl exploded was due to a poor design (and a poor construction); the rod's used to slow down and eventually stop the nuclear reactor was tipped with a substance that made the reactor even more powerful; that coupled with heat sensors that didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t read the bottom of the reactor and a poorly run safety test led to the disaster; in modern reactors built properly the chance of a melt down's are almost nil. Nuclear fusion will be a useful quick fix for our power problems (however it may be slow to introduce since it will be costly to replace everything and oil big wig's have too much influence over the direction of future fuel technologies); I think the most viable source of energy will be from neutrino/anti-neutrino collisions (or other dark matter/anti- dark matter collisions), from quantum vacuum energy or from a completely new and unknown source we don't even know about. String Theory sounds more like some special mathematics rather then a framework for physics (however I may be proved wrong) so don't expect a breakthrough to happen any time soon. On with my predictions: You may or may not realise this but medical breakthroughs will most likely be able to keep us living well beyond the next 100 years so we may some of these predictions work out. Life in the next 100 years will be quite pleasant: -Car's will be scrapped in place of magnetic-levitation (result of room temperature super conductors) transport. -Space expedition will be cheaper with a space elevator in service. -We will master how to prevent death (through curing illnesses). -We will master the environment and will be able to terra-form any part of it to suit our need's and the rest of the world's. -Much of the production side of the world (food, good's) will be automated on specially designed tiers (most land will consist on huge buildings on multiple levels each specifically designed for one task I.E. farming, bottling etc.) where inputs go in and you collect the final product on the other side (with mechanics to go in and fix things if they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be fixed internally). Well I can go on forever since this is open ended and you are talking about the world in general but to put it simply the world will be radically different to now; in terms of technology, philosophy and global responsibility.

I know our generation of people (as in people under 30) will be able to accept technology as it has been growing at such a rapid rate it became a part of our lives (seeing the next gadget) but for people over 40 it starts to become a bit of a problem as all the technology they lived with was a TV, a fridge and a washing machine (if they were lucky) with very little difference. If we were given a quantum transporters or a time machine and asked to use it we would be pretty stumped as well but in reality thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s about a similar jump in technology as they experience to what we will experience in the future. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t deny that fact that many of them will not bother to learn how to use them purely for that fact that they have already gotten along with life pretty good. I dont think too many 15 year olds live on their own using exclusively their money, have children, understand what a relationship is about (more then trying to tap that [wagon]) and come under pressure when it actually means something (taking 10 more seconds to do a hamburger is not going to kill a customer; trying to fix a damaged database while keeping your bosses happy about losing millions of dollars in e-commerce is quite another). Not to say all teens are narrow minded but very little of them (ones still living with their parents) of experience what is means to be able to maintain yourself. The Teens I look as mature are the ones that managed to turn their lives around after bring kicked out of their home at 13 by their drug addicted, abusive parents; finding out how to live and eventually get enough money to rent an apartment and hold a job. I've pretty much agree with people that maturity does not equal age as many young adults just go out party all day on their parents tab for pretty much their whole life. It doe not matter what the topic matter of discussion is; a 30 year old who talks about things a 10 year wants (like say Barbie collecting or clothes etc) is alright but acting like one is not (i.e. having a fit because the a shop attendant gave you the donut with sprinkles on it instead of the one with 100's and 1000's). Just because farmers talk about crops and methods to yield better crops instead of discussing whether or not god exists or what the universe is doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean they are immature; sometimes itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s more practical to keep philosophy to a minimum.

So are you trying to say adults don't know about advances in science? I think most adults comprehend technological advance by looking around (most common examples would be electronics [i.e. TVÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s] and cars), therefore any rational person would automatically assume there will be new theory behind new technology and that it would be taught in school. Just because they don't know what new stuff your doing doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean they are completely ignorant of change; to put it more simply older people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t like new things because they have higher resistance to change then young-middle aged adults since they have been doing it by their method longer then the others. Like Einstein once said; if you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain a theory in simple terms within the confines of a paragraph then it is too confusing to be adopted by society as a whole. As for your second question I'm actually the complete opposite (I'm currently aiming to complete a science degree and move into research); however I do believe it is not intelligence that makes someone mature it is wisdom and all teen's are lacking it (and in most cases, the short-bus equivalent to wisdom; common sense).

So who makes the school syllabus; Adults? I think they understand this concept of compactification of work; however it's the teen that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand research has increased 50 fold to the amount of new work they learn compared to their parents; leaving the teen with the perception that they know more then their parents therefore they know everything. Just because you have greater technical experience does not mean you are more mature; that is a rating of real life experience. Technical experience leads to a false sense of maturity.

These adults where teenagers once too; they should know. Key differences Teen's - experience as a child and a teen. Adults - experience as a child, teen and an adult. I think Adults have more authority on the situation then Teen's; they should know they were once the Pot smoking, beer drinking, brainless, aggressive, perverts that played games and watch TV all day teen's and they have the ability to reflect on that where as teens are currently living it.