ribuck

Exactly! The Regression theorem says that money has value today because it had value yesterday. And so on, back into time. At some point, if you go back far enough, there must have been some external reason why money was perceived to have value. But there's no need for that original external reason to continue to be of any substance.

Eventually there comes a point where certain individuals have adaptations which are so extreme that those individuals can no longer inter-breed with the mainstream of their species. From that point on, the individuals with that adaptation will breed only with others of the same adaptation, and a new species has come into existence, which will in time undergo further evolution.

The standard Android music player also lets you adjust the playback speed.

The boyfriend's action was against the system, which is always punished more harshly than other acts.

Yes it's a true story, but they were just one month at the time.

Most humans are social creatures, and ostracism has a strong effect. In the case of humans who are anti-social, ostracism at least keeps them from bothering other people so much.

The state. In the UK, the state can ask the courts to force certain medical procedures. For example, children of Jehova's Witnesses can be forced to receive blood transfusions against their religion's wishes.

These girls don't have self-ownership of their shared body, but rather joint ownership. The philosophy flows from that reality. This reminds me of a lifeboat scenario that played out in the British courts. Jodie and Mary were born conjoined in 2000, but Jodie had most of the organs. The court authorised the hospital to separate them, even though Mary was sure to die. Without the operation, both of them would probably (but not necessarily) die. Their parents opposed the separation, but lost their court case so the hospital went ahead with cutting them apart. As expected, Mary was killed by the operation. Here's a fascinating discussion of the legal arguments that were considered by the court. The court considered issues that are frequently discussed on this forum, including whether the operation would be considered as "self-defence" or "murder": http://www.hartpub.co.uk/updates/crimlaw/crimlaw_med.htm

I'm not discussing your main argument, but I should point out that no-one "has" to deal with the carcass. People may choose to do this so that they can put the building to better use, reduce the risk of a breakout of disease, etc. But the guy who died didn't force them to. It's 100% voluntary.

I think it's fair for Peter Schiff to say that Austrian Economics is built on a narrative approach rather than a rigorous mathematical model. But that narrative approach has better explanatory power and predictive power than the current best mathematical models. In other words, "Austrian economics works, bitches!"

No, you certainly can't be certain that her past relationship is a non-issue. But that's no reason to be "hung up" about it, or to resist exploring the possibilities. She has already said that her previous relationship will be the topic of your next big talk, so it seems that everything will come out into the open. And you two are making each other laugh. In my experience, couples who make each other laugh a lot have the most rewarding and enduring relationships.

Joel, I have a hunch you would really enjoy this video by Tyler about insecurities:

It took me years to understand the real implication of being friendzoned. You have been courting a woman when she friendzones you. Friendzoning doesn't mean "I don't want a romantic relationship, let's be friends". Friendzoning means "I don't want a romantic relationship, and I'm not going to be friends, but I want you to keep doing all those nice things you did while courting my romance". Being friendzoned means there's no chance of a romantic relationship, nor of a reciprocal friendship.

I think you are a lucky guy! Don't be too hung up on a mathematical model of "time between relationships equals half of length of relationship".

As you say, Bitcoin has no CEO, and Charlie Shrem was CEO of an exchange. But he is also on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation (an unofficial industry body). His exchange was registered as a money service business, and he was the designated compliance officer. As such, there was an unambiguous legal requirement for him to report any transaction for which there was the slightest whiff of suspicion. So I think the prosecution will find it easy to secure a conviction.

TheRobin, if motivation counts for nothing because it is immeasurable, then surely we must also disregard potential future damage to the bus. Not only can the potential damage not be measured when we pull the man out from in front of the bus, but we can't even approximately estimate it. It's nothing more than speculation to consider that a person initiates force against a bus when they step out in front of it.

That's probably because it wasn't a rebuttal! If you read it as commentary rather than rebuttal, let me know at what point it doesn't make sense. Note that I'm not addressing aggression against the bus. I've yet to hear of someone who threw themselves in front of a bus in order to damage the bus.

LanceD, people present these scenarios in response to claims by others that there is some universal principle. Any universal principle ought to be, you know, universal, which means it can be applied even to these scenarios.

What ccuthbert said. Provided you have lots of time available to help the child explore whatever they're passionate about, it will work out well. No pre-ordained structure needed.

If it was me, I'd be keeping it simple. I'd start the job as planned, accepting in advance that a hidden problem might come to light, and that I might not want to stay in the job for long. No matter how much research you do before starting the job, you can't know for sure that you've uncovered all potential downsides. So just starting the job might be the easiest way to find out for sure. On the upside, it sounds like you might have more autonomy than you would often get in that type of position, so there's a chance it could work out really well.

He broke his wedding vows by soliciting the affection of other women online. Therefore he has voided the contract of marriage, and you are released from it. The rest is just paperwork.

That's a great analogy! When I hear you say that you have blue socks on your left foot, I know that you had a blue sock on your left foot one year ago, when you sent the message. If I know that you never wear the same color on both feet, I can deduce that you had a red sock on your right foot one year ago, even though I'm making that deduction today. There's no information being conveyed faster than the speed of light. There's no way for me to discover what socks you were wearing any time more recently than one year ago.

We (i.e. all humans, including physicists working on non-locality) can't use non-locality to convey information faster than the speed of light. We can only "observe" non-locality after it happens and after we have communicated the results from one observer to the other at the speed of light. If non-locality provided a way to convey information faster than the speed of light, the High Speed Trading guys would be all over it. They spend millions just to shave a few milliseconds off their communication speeds.

Indeed, that's the only useful way of looking at this. Put another way, we don't know any way to convey information faster than the speed of light, nor do we have any reason to think that quantum physics provides a way for us to convey information faster than the speed of light.

There's no doubt that pulling the man away from the bus is initiating force against him. So if you do that, you need to understand that you did initiate force and there might be consequences. But realistically, the aggression is incredibly slight, and therefore the consequences would be incredibly slight. You have moved a person a short distance. In every crowded place, people bump into others all the time and move them a short distance, normally without any problem. On the other hand, there is a good chance that you will be hailed a hero, by onlookers and probably by the man himself. So, naturally, most people will pull the man away from the bus. In the rare case where it was the man's genuine intention to die, well he'll need to make his next attempt away from potential rescuers won't he?