h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, you wouldn't get stuck in a time loop. Truth is, if you were moving faster than light your clock would be travelling backwards relative to the rest of the Universe, if I recall the Lorenz-Fitzgerald transformation equations correctly. (A set of equations which govern the variation of mass, time and length depending on the relative velocity of an observer to the object being observed.) However, as soon as you slowed down you would begin moving forward again in time at a more normal rate.

- Jordan

...

Moving on a bit from the topic of toxx's dildo addiction (sorry, I couldn't resist ) did anyone see today's episodes of 'Friends'?

SCENE: Chandler arrives home from work.

Chandler: (Singing) Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain...STOP IT! Why couldn't they have sent me to Texas? 7 o'clock, maybe I'll hit the gym. (Sits down) Who am I kidding? Pay-per-view porn!

Monica enters.

Chandler: Do not disturb! Do not disturb! (Changes channels.) Monica!

Monica: Is everything all right?

Chandler: Everything's great, just watching some regular television there, what a pleasant surprise. (She hugs him. She knows he was masturbating, but he changed the channel - to a nature program about sharks.)

Monica: I'm gonna go freshen up, OK?

Chandler: OK honey... (To himself) That was close.

Cut to Rachel; phone rings.

Rachel: Hello.

Monica: Hey Rach, its me, OK, I just got to Chandler's room and I caught him molesting himself.

Rachel: Oh, that couldn't have been pretty. But you know, guys do that.

Monica: Yeah well, the weird part is... he was getting off to a shark attack show!

Rachel: Noooooo!

Monica: Yes! /Chandler watches shark porn!/

I nearly cried laughing...

- Jordan

I keep recommending Bloor's 'Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus' paper. This has to be one of those times.

So far as I can see, it's mainly a discourse on dominant styles of argument - the only reference I can find on the Internet is within a paper covering formal and informal techniques in debate. Why?

- Jordan

Della;
that's alright then. I have considered the problem hypothetically and it is just that in my present circumstances, supporting a child would be nigh-on impossible.

I don't reckon statistics about how many pro-abortion campaigners are men are relevent, though. (Plenty of them might have been involved in a situation where it directly concerns them, though.) It isn't relevent to me how many people who share my opinion are men, or not, or how many disagree, since if I were in those circumstances the only people I would be consulting with would be me and my partner.

I don't think women have an automatically better opinion than men (although *some* probably empathise better.)

A vanishing number perhaps, but still present. I would not consider those cases to be anything other than exceptional circumstances.

I've never found the text on the net, but you have the advantage of a uni library, Jordan. I've Googled the title (in double quotes, of course) but there are only references to collected works that contain it or to the source of the original paper. Yep, it does cover styles of mathematical argument. That's kinda the point I was trying to make. There are ways and ways of deciding how maths should go; just as there are infinitely many possible logics.

I think that the /point/ of maths is its utility - though a more formal definition (say, any system of formal logic sufficient to formulate the Peano axioms) might be in order. Thus it is adapts to the situation, not vice-versa...

- Jordan

More than that, Bloor argues that it adapts to the individual or school of thought. Consequently, it is somewhat arbirtrary, as I originally said.

maternal mortality rates:

US: 10 per 100,000 (suspected to be twice as high due to undereporting)
UK: 12.2 per 100,000
NZ: 15 per 100,000

contrast with, for eg. Rwanda: 2300 per 100,000.

'More than that, Bloor argues that it adapts to the individual or school of thought.'

Strange idea, because all the maths I know of depend on logic. But even if that were so it isn't arbitrary, it's developed to fit a need.

- Jordan

Yes i saw this episode of Friends.
Now Jordan do you think Chandler might be tempted to go on to rap[e sharks (or humans giving the error of communication? ) <biggrin.
Because he 'gave in' to the temptation of a porn channel?

Just a thought Mandragona
How many people thoughout history have had children that they felt they could not support.
I often wonder if viable contraception were available much earlier in history if there would be any humans left.
When you put it down on paper, not many of us could not afford progeney on any level....financial, emotional.
It was something that just happened and people just got on with it I suppose.
Making the best we can from what we have.
What would be the optimum 'right' time to reproduce?

when both people are ready and thair is a stable famaly situation

Anthea
the problem with that is that life is not stable, it changes constantly as do people.

Yes, but you can always think 'oh, I think we might just be ready to have a family,' go to your local clinic for some family planning advice and make a decision based on what they think is best for a child.

Unusual that there are no restrictions on having biological children when there are stringent procedures for adoption, I'll admit, but the fact is that we can't stop people from having children - even if it's selfish to do so in their present situation.

- Jordan

But logic is arbitrary, Jordan. There are infinitely many possible logics, as I said a couple of posts ago. Different need, different math. Nothing sacred about it.

Best time for girls to have kids is in their teens. Why do the powers that be think there's something wrong with teenage pregnancies?

Best for whom toxx?

The girl and the sprog, Hass. OK, society tends to have a problem with that, I know.

i was just wondering if anyone know what would happen if humans were able to use 100% of their brain