Posts by briansmall

The comparison of the (label) evil internet to (the lable) evil guns does not quite fit. While I agree that neither guns or the internet are evil, it's a question of control, a control exerted by our morality. It's a simple notion, wanton killing is bad. We all know it, and most of us live by it.

Most parents attempt to limit their childrens' access to guns, those with guns usually train their children in their use if they allow their use at all, which cuts down greatly on accidents and immature acts.

It generally works. Yes, people are murdered with guns every day, but for the most part, if there were no guns, the same number of people would probably be murdered by other means. And in fact the numbers (by percentage) are quite low. You run a much greater risk of dying by your own hand in your own car. Or by measles, for that matter. (Think about that for a moment).

People mistake the intent of the murderer with the tool used. Guns are readily accessible to many, so those who would murder often use it instead of other means. If you were to take away all guns (in the cities) you'd simply see increased use of poison, knives, bows & arrows, fire, pipe bombs and the like. The death toll would not diminish notably.

For the most part guns are under control. The numbers of death by firearms are astoundingly low .. …

I'd have to say fair. If you rise up to that position, why not get a piece of the cake?

Can you give a definition of the word fair?

this is the one I use, more or less: Fair - free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules; "a fair referee"; "fair deal"; "on a fair footing"; "a fair fight"; "by fair means or foul"

However, your mileage may vary.

If what you mean is: Fair - legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight ..

then the conversation becomes more convoluted and you have to look further.

All's fair in love and war is a well known phrase. And business is certainly a battle for the buck.

So all of my reasoning is coming from just one description of what fair a fair wage means.. it means essentially (to me) ... a proportionate distribution of wealth which is representative of the quality and amount of effort expended by the wage earner.

Ah, that must be it. It ties in the whole thing about murder with the thing about taking Native American land.

No, that's not it.

"It" is "about" thinking about underlying the principles upon which our actions stand. It is about thinking bout those principles at play in our interactions.

Just because we feel we personally have harmed no one, that does not follow that our actions are predicated upon sound reasoning.

I'm not saying that any specific person is "bad" .. I'm talking about principles. The murder of others in order to control resources is about as old as mankind. Indians are simply one example. I'm just asking people to think about what uderlies what they believe.

It is my experience that people believe what they want to believe, rather than what is true. We are a self-referential species, and we are extremely "wrapped up" in our egocentric points of view.

We think that if we believe something to be right, it must be so, otherwise, how could we have come to believe it? After all, we all mean well.

But this is circular reasoning; .. I think and I care so I must not have made mistakes in my thinking.

We don't tend to look too deeply at any thought that offends the way we want things to be.

Anyone who has high hopes of making a "decent" wage will be taken aback by someone suggesting that that is …

I don't see what any of these latest rants have to do with the discussion about whether corporate executives rightfully deserve their salaries.

From the original post:

Good day boys & girls...So is it fair?? Is it fair for CEO's/executives to receive millions yearly while the mass of the employees of the companies at times doesn't get near what theses executives get. Some say its fair & they're just being rewarded for their work and school. Others say it's corporate greed. So what do you think?

Mind explaining this one to me? I'm having trouble seeing how you arrive at this conclusion. Perhaps some of it is, but I fail to see how every single bit (you did specify 'all'), is based on murder.

Is this an opinion you hold, or are you willing to provide proof of it?

Except that if you are correct, it isn't irrelevant to some people, because by drawing on your own logic, in order for you to get what you want for yourself, then they will have to be deprived of something (apparently someone's life). If I am incorrect in this assessment, please point out to me where this occurs.

I'm still failing to see where you're getting the 'murder' part from; if I wished to own a certain piece of property, then I would see my options as A) part with some piece of my own property, or B) provide some useful service, either option resulting in mutually satisfactory barter for the property in question. Option C) muder someone, never seems to cross my mind while dealing with such things.

I do so love it when someone understands and addresses what I've said rather. You think before you react, thanks.

As for murder, let's take just this country as an example and see if that's good enough for you.

We murdered the indians. Do you need proof of that? We took the land from them. That's the act that underlies all ownership of land and resources today. …

I agree with Squires. No offense, but I get the impression that you are just complaining that people are more successful than you and make more money than you, but in the same sentence self-acknowledge that you don't have the same drive and determination and focus that they do at their careers.

If you know that putting in some more effort will lead to advancing in your career, why not just do something about it instead of complaining about those people who do?

Also, you say that people who work the same hours shouldn't make more money just because they have more talent and put in more effort. But in the next sentence, you praise someone for having talent and say that people should be rewarded for their efforts.

I'm sorry to say this to you csgal, but you are simply wrong. My writing is not about impressions. I'm not an ambivalent person who "sort of states, kind of what he feels." I am as precise as I can possibly be, always. There is a little room for interpretation as I can possibly bring to bear within my writing. Where there is misinterpretation I am always ready to explain.

Your impression of my position might seem to stem from your dislike of what I'm saying, because it confronts your postion.

Precision in discussion often creates the impression that the person being precise has a desire for things to be one way or the other.

In reality I …

You should stop contradicting yourself. First you say:

"Make no mistake, I do not expect nor "demand" that "life should be fair"

then you say:

"There needs to be a definition of fair, or not."

And pretty much the rest of your post preaches about how life should be fair. Life isn't, nor will it ever be fair. You seem to be upset because their are people that make more money than you. You can either do something about it, or you can complain on a message board about it. then you say:

One of two things is happening here.. you have either made an honest mistake, or you have taken exception to me and thus are not interested in being accurate.

Attend: The statement "There needs to be a definition of fair, or not" does not contradict this one: "Make no mistake, I do not expect nor "demand" that "life should be fair"

It simply says that if you want to talk about what is fair, you have to define fair.

Then you go on to state that I've preached about life being fair, but you give no examples, because there are none.

What you have presented is an inability to understand what you've read.

For the record, I'll say it again: I do not demand that life be fair. I am on record in the very post you are misquoting as saying "I personally don't care if it's fair or not. It's just …

I believe that people should be rewarded for their hard work, whatever their passion may be.
..........

Case in point: Microsoft's 55 year old co-founder and $18 billion dollar man Paul Allen is a never-been-married bachelor. In fact, this is so common that there's actually a Forbes Billionaire Bachelors list of never married men over 40.
..........
In conclusion, you cannot apply your values and principles to everyone in the world.

I have no beef with Paul Allen to be sure. This is only a discussion, for me, about balance, fairness. You use the phrase "..people should be rewarded for their hard work .." and at no point have I disagreed. But the notion that making a thousand times as much as the people who support you in your endeavor and work the same hours as you do, simply because you have a bit more talent, luck and drive than some of them, is simply a vulgar display of egocentricity. It has nothing whatever to do with fairness. Saying it is fair devalues every human being who had the talent but failed to be in just the right place at the right time.

Make no mistake, I do not expect nor "demand" that "life should be fair" .. that's not my position at all. But the discrepancy in wages between some corporate executives and the rest of us simply takes all meaning out of the word "fair" ..

Nothing you have said supports your view, …

I like reading, skiing, Rubik Cubes.
Hit the flag bad post button.

The button says it is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts. ... I don't want to bug them by ignoring their wishes.

> only a few can percolate to the top.
I don't believe that the people who are most successful got that way purely by accident. You guys talk about how lucky the selected few are to hold such high-paying positions but at what cost? The majority of executives worked towards their careers at the cost of families, friends, any sort of social life, etc.

I think that if any one of you decided today that you wanted to give up your entire life for the sake of your career, then in 10 years from now, it wouldn't be [financially-speaking] in vain.

And you don't think there's something wrong with that equation? Those are the people you want to reward, people who abandon their families for corporate advancement? These are the people you want influencing government behavior towards the very people that they have abandoned? And you support the notion that they "should" have millions to your thousands?

Whew. I never cease to be amazed at the attraction of the dollar for the majority of the middle class.

This attraction overwhelms all other compassionate regard for and consideration of their fellow man, tainting all values and principles.

"Answer this: If a CEO made the same amount as a bagger at a grocery store, what incentive would there be to take the job as a CEO? If you have 2 equally paying jobs, people will take the job that requires the least amount of work."

Wrong. People will take a job that suits their personalities. They will compete for control.

Higher wages are one thing, (I do not believe in socialism) but someone making 50 to 200 times as much as the person sitting outside their office is simply a vulgar display of corporate greed.

There are many more people who are capable of the job than who are paid for it. That is, if you take certain elements out of the picture, such as extreme self-serving behavior and simple greed.

Running a company is not as hard as you want us all to believe. When a company gets big enough to pay the wages we're talking about an there is, after all, a hierarchy of support, the top dog certainly must know how to wheel and deal, and smooze, and understand the business to a great degree.

That's not the issue here, it's the "type" of person who does this that is at issue. Who in the name of God said that the sort of corporations that pay these sorts of wages can be shown to be a "good" thing for mankind anyway?

The entire notion of corporation is ... dare …

The salaries of CEOs are hight to attract the best person, that makes the best decisions for the company. If the company thrives, so do the workers.

There are exceptions of course.

it is not my view that high ceo salaries helps anyone except the ceo. it seems to me that the higher the salary, the more likely it is that there is corruption occuring, that damage is being done to the workers, the populace, and or the environment.

businsess is often used as a means of theft. how can you not know that?

as for attracting the best person, that's an unsupported statement. you have not shown the equation between best and insanely high salaries to exist.

Like everything in this world, it comes down to the law of supply and demand. If your skills are in demand, and there are few people capable of what you can do, you can charge more for your services.

You would be entirely right if supply and demand of human resources were the only reason that the ratio of wealth distribution is in place.

But human resources (managerial ability) are not the only issue at play. The notion of ownership of natural resources underlies the business paradigm in it' many forms. This ownership does not reflect a "fair distribution" of wealth, rather, it reflects a wholly different premise. Wealth in virtally all of its forms can be seen to derive from ownership of that which is extracted from the earth, air and sun.

In a fair world, the natural resources would be shared, equally, as needed. Then you'd see exactly how many people had these abilities you speak of. But when the resources are tightly controlled, only a few can percolate to the top.

Wealth is not shared according to ability or effort. Those who have it certainly often are intelligent and industrious. But so are many others who don't have it. Timing and placement are everything.

Well, almost everything. Fair is not much of the equation.

opps, wrong button, please disregard this post (can someone delete this ?)

... they run the greater risk (... legal ...) in case things go wrong, and their job is extremely stressful.

Apparently you haven't heard the meaning of the word "corporation". ???

Your justification is weak. How many more hours per week than mine justify a wage 1000 times mine? As for greater risk, well, for some, yes, but anyone making the type of bucks we're talking about probably has the risk covered in a number of ways.

Fair is (just) a human concept that has nothing to do with the natural mechanisms of existence.

My point is that there really is no such thing as "fair", there is only our desire for certain behavior in others.

The question of whether something is fair is not an issue that somehow exists out there, rather, it's a question of whether we wish we had more.

What is it that most intrigues you, the most important thing you pursue?

They do mandate that you reveal all passwords to them....even if you encrypt the data, they have softwares/programs that can decrypt the info...

Just park it all on Google. It'll be safe there ... ;)

i dont care

its like being pat-searched when you enter a large event, its for your own good.

This "pat search" you speak of is all good and well. It's not an invasion of your privacy. Some people carry some deeply personal stuff on their computers, their very lives are invested on them. It's one thing that someone is looking and sees your pictures of you and your wife doing whatever it is you do ... you can blush and be embarrased, and that's that... you get on the plane and work on getting over the violation.

But what about when the computer is taken from you, you're forced to give them your passwords, and you don't get it back?

There's often someone in an organization engaged in illegal activity for their personal gain. Now it is possible that they might get their hands on your computer because their employer, the Government, has absolutely no restraints as to how they handle your private life.

That's like a pat-search?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/02/11/laptop.searches/index.html

This is my favorite part from the page you linked above:

[ The Customs and Border Protection defends the searches, saying the agency does not need to show probable cause to look inside suitcases or laptops.

"We have broad search authority at the borders to determine admissibility and look for anything that may be in violation of criminal law," says agency spokeswoman Lynn Hollinger. ]

(italics were mine)

Gee, that's swell. They need no probable cause to look for anything anywhere, anytime. No suspicion, not even an idea of what they might be looking for.

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin badges."

This reminds me of the BATF sweeps that were occuring 15 years ago. Ah well, they had exactly the effect intended at the time, I suppose this might as well. Human rights is, after all, only a concept held in the mind of man.

It's interesting. Conservatives argue that the government is too large and incompetent to run big domestic programs, but when it comes to defense and foreign wars it's almost an act of disloyalty for some to question that the government can do anything wrong. On the other hand, Liberals seem to want huge programs run by the government domestically but are absolutely certain that the government is out to subvert the rights of everyone when it comes to defense and foreign affairs. It's a curious love/hate relationship that both liberals and conservatives have with the U.S. government. I have a hard time reconciling it all.

I don't think it's all that much of a mystery.

We don't really have a two party system in that "two" means much. What we have effectively is a one party system where the liberals and conservatives simply act as the boundaries of one channel of thought. What our two party system does is to ensure that there is no action outside of those boundaries.

The two party system has become little more than a mechanism which insures that a reasoned approach will not upset the apple cart. while it is true that individuals seek the truth, en-masse, "we" do not want upheaval if it means giving up our comforts or making a change to our way of conduction our business.

We do not employ a reasoned approach to our problems. There is reason put forth, but the system is designed to squelch …

From what I've seen here (and I could easily be wrong), then yes, if he thinks the government is in the wrong then BrianSmall will argue it with them.

No, damnit, you're right.

If you could look back 20 years on the internet, you'd see that if "they" decide to make a clean sweep I won't be on the "keeper" list. ;-)

Make no mistake, I'm love our country, but it is not above making mistakes.

If the government made the choice what are you going to do about it? They are the elephant, you are the mouse. Are you going to argue who is right?

Of course I'll argue.

In any case I won't suggest that (just) anyone who has been accused of being a terrorist by our government "deserves" to be tortured. I have no assumption that just because someone has been targeted by various gov't agencies that they are therefore guilty and "have it coming to them".. I've simply seen our gov't act in out of control manner. While we may have a system that relies somwhat on the "will of the people" the Government tends to take on a life and personality somewhat different than what the people want.

It appeared to me that you are putting a lot of trust and faith in the government, I thought maybe you had not been watching.

Huh? Because I agree completely with torturing suspected terrorists?

No, because you seem to believe that if the government has made the choice then it is right.

Uhhh.. if the U.S. government has deemed it necessary to use torture tactics such as waterboarding on you, then you probably have given them some reason to believe that you are a terrorist.. and you deserve whatever they do to you.

Josh, this is sincerely not meant as an insult, but are you kinda young? Judging by your statement above you don't seem to have a clear view of what has been going on around you.

Well, All,

I've had my rebuttal, and it's over for me at this point, thanks for the input.

It was Narue that suggested that I simply state my position and let it go.

A problem with forums is that all too often people simply don't exhibit responsibility for what they put out there. Thus he can insult me, but not have to support his accusations or insults. That's not just chicken, it's lame.

I didn't have a reasoned approach in place. It takes practice. So if you feel I have over-reacted, (as do I,) well, he pissed me off. I won't justify my reaction, I am what I am (and that's all I am :)

your attempts to muzzle all opposition to your ideas is all the proof that's required.

It shows your true nature, that of someone who can't stand the truth about himself from being exposed because that truth would hurt his chances of getting his propaganda and other lies accepted as truth by the unwitting.

For the record jw, I am not a socialist, I do not "believe in" socialism. What I do believe in, in that respect, is not on the table for discussion. Nowhere in this forum have I laid those beliefs out. But they are not socialist by a very long shot.

(It would seem that you have only a passing understanding of socialism if you get that out of anything I have said.)

I have no power to muzzle opposition. Do you feel muzzled? And my propaganda? My God jw, where is that coming from? Do you think I'm anything other than a private citizen, just tryining to get by like 300 million others? I have opinions. I state them, even as you state yours. When did that become propaganda?.

Finally, contrary to your statement, I welcome truth in all forms, whether about me or about the universe we live in.

Sure, I'm resistent to change to some of my beliefs, but I love it when someone proves I am wrong, because then I've learned something. Can you understand that type of open mindedness?

I know you have no reason to believe otherwise …

Assuming the accusation to be true (you're accusing him of committing defamation, not his accusation of you being socialist), wouldn't it qualify as libel instead?

There's no assumptions that need be made. One can back up a page, follow the thread, and see what he's said about me, how I responded asking him to support his statement or retract it, and how he simply responded with more insult.

I don't expect anyone to jump on this subject, but please if you are going to make comments, read the exchange.

As for libel or slander, I haven't checked. I used the term I though correct.

I'd reccomend getting back to the topic at hand...

jwenting is committing slander, he has lied about who I am and what I am putting forth.

This is a community, he is welcome to his opinion, but I've asked for a retraction or evidence that I've posted that would lead him to making his statements, and he's just heaping more on. I don't care to have myself painted as a particular type of person when I am not that.

I don't mind flames, they are part of the game. But I am deeply offended by slander for the sake of making a point, when it's insult and run.

If he could make the effort to back up his claims about me I would be happy to address them.

He has gone off the deep end, and frankly I consider his behavior to be sick.

your attempts to muzzle all opposition to your ideas is all the proof that's required.

It shows your true nature, that of someone who can't stand the truth about himself from being exposed because that truth would hurt his chances of getting his propaganda and other lies accepted as truth by the unwitting.

This is sick. I've asked you to support your accusations and you just heap more on.

Brian's insistence that socialism is right and conservatism is wrong in all things is proof positive of the fact that that state has now been reached...

YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END. YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT MY POSITION. THIS IS SLANDER.

I would ask you to provide proof that I have at any point stated, or even implied that
" socialism is right and conservatism is wrong in all things " or clearly retract your accusation.

I'm not generally one to complain to others about the behavior of my peers, but you have severely insulted my sensibilities. Without a direct retraction from you, here in this thread, I will attempt to get Daniweb involved in a resolution of this slander.

If you make it a practice to go around slandering or making broad accusations and lying about what people have said in order to make your point, I pity the hell out of you.

I can't say for certain in the here and now. However, I would submit that, in all likelihood, the politics of a party in the 'now' are defined as a progression of their politics in the 'then'. And while Orwell's writings were, as I recall, mostly aimed at British liberalism/socialism, and Stalinist socialism thereby, I submit that there is no longer any great difference between the British version then and the current American version. You are, of course, quite free to claim I am wrong; and if you believe I am wrong then I find it unlikely you would choose to say otherwise. I still stand by what I have observed. Perhaps I am not the most observant of men; still, I cannot claim I have seen anything other than what my own eyes have viewed, nor to have heard anything other than what my own ears have caught.

I am here now. Not then. I know things were different then, which is sort of, or at least, part of my point.

So let me be clear on this, since perhaps I am not.

Do you, in the now, maintain that "Liberals" are leading us toward an Orwellian state, whilst "Conservatives" are not?

Are you in, or referring to the US or elsewhere?

I am interested in what you have observed, whether I now agree with it or not. I come to any discussion to learn, not to simply fight for my current beliefs. My beliefs …

Trust me, Orwell's warnings were against the kind of stuff liberals would like to be able to do. And now, since we've got liberals teaching the classes most places, they recast Orwell as presaging conservative actions instead.

Trust you? Liberals want ... what? My God, Enderx, where have you been, what have you been watching for the last several years? Surely not the goings on in the good-ol' USofA .. The conservatives have taken away more rights in the last few years than we lost collectively in the previous 50.

Don't forget that the whole notion that what business wants to do is all fair game in the name of a buck. Google could only be more Orwellian if they had our DNA mapped out and on file. And please, don't talk about their "intent" and what nice guys they are, they simply have no business whatsoever in keeping our private words and transactions forever after we've gone through the motion of deleting them. There can be no moral or ethical reason to do so.

And they, while perhaps the biggest perpetrators, are by no means alone. In fact, they are simply the very visible tip of the iceberg.

This is all being done in the name of (conservative) business "ethics". We cannot conduct business, that is, earn a living and retain rights to privacy. The conservatives are not fighting for our rights. they simply slipped away unnoticed.

Rights? (What rights?) We have none. This is …

Hah. I thought you would have liked blogs.

Perhaps you'd care to make your reason for thinking that apparent?

And then there were blogs.

How many people are blogging? Half a billion? Less? More?

All these people clamoring to be heard have a way for them to put their words "out there" where a billion others might see them.

But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?

Do more choices always equal better quality?

Is anything being said on the internet that was not being said among families, friends and acquaintances?

I "get" technology blogs, but personal rants leave me wondering if anything is being added to the din.

There's always a chance you'll find a gem. But do we need blogs to do that? Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available?

I have the feeling that something is missing.

High Def TV does not transmit the feeling of a still sunrise in the wilderness.

The problem with blogs is that most often there is no "exhange" taking place, the blogger is talking from within a vacuum, and most often does not respond to input (unlike a forum where you'll get pounded, and either put up or shut up.)

Conclusivity is lacking.

We tend to interpret the Constitution in todays' light, and we assume that the framers were geniuses. But they were simply people much like you and me, who could not foresee everthing that would happen in decades and centuries to come, who tried to address all the issues they understood to be likely to arise in the world as they knew it, and in view of any future they could imagine.

What has happened since then is that two mindsets regarding the constitution have come to bear upon its interpretation. There are those who wish to see its fundamental intent honored in light of changes that were unforseen, and those who wish to use those changes to get around the intent.

Those who do not wish to abide by the morality and the ethics of the constitution find ways to cloud the issues. Even so, it's not difficult to see the underlying principles.

Sound principles can be named clearly. There aren't that many of them. But by now we have so many laws circumventing them that we have little chance of getting back to them.

Have you ever watched the process of a dike being breached by a river? Eventually everything gives way. We are well past a trickle, huge chunks are out, the walls are coming down.

Enjoy your freedom, such as it is, while it lasts. You are losing more every day.

I remember when 1984 rolled around, so many people were saying .. "Orwell had it wrong, it didn't happen." These people are saying the same thing today.

It is that kind of mentality what makes us "sheep" ready for the butchery.

I do have things to hide. That's why I wear clothing.
What if I want to hide pictures of my family? Bank statements? An important project that I want to patent? My score of minesweeper?.
Yeah, yeah, do not take anything of these in a laptop through the airport. But do we need to be
so controlled and inconvenienced just so security authorities can show us the great job they're doing catching all those laptops full with pictures with porn, if any.
Since when porn if vital for the security of the border. You don't think you'll find a plot to blow a nuclear plant in one of those machine, don't you?
What would be next, confiscate all the "thumb drives"? Cdrom? Portable MP3 players? Books? Writing material? napkins?

As soon as they can get the technology in place it will be your thoughts.

I cannot believe for a moment that any person who has a morality that includes respect for the right to an individual to live as he or she sees fit as long as that individual is not harming others, and, said person has a strong sense of ethical behavior can think for even a second that there is really an argument here.

There can be no question whatsoever that prying into someones laptop without just cause is a terrible invasion of privacy. A laptop is an extension of your thoughts, your private dealings, your mail, hell, your home. Invasion is invasion, and trying to dress it up and parade it as anything else tells me with absolute certainty that you are part of the problem we face in the world today.

That problem is the dilution of rational thought where morality and individual rights are concerned. It entails the blurring of the line between the rights of the individual vs the supposed rights of the many. If only that were true. But in fact, it's just a form of hysteria. If there was a chance in hell that this sort of behavior would far outweigh the damage it does, then there might be a reason to discuss it as though it could be "for the good of mankind".. Historically this simply is not the case. Never does the ends justifiy the means when you are damaging many innocent individuals in the hopes of saving other individuals at some …

What it comes down to is that "they" will do whatever the hell they want unless "we" stop them.

Well what if it isn't about speed at all, but rather about placement?

Nothing wrong with a healthy imagination! You need it to be creative. Men in Black is a very funny movie.

However, when you imagine to see living/moving things others can't see, and you are sober and call them real, then you are a troubled mind at best.

That brings to mind a song ...

A worried man with a worried mind
No one in front of me and nothing behind
There's a woman on my lap and she's ..
Drinking champagne ...

Ah but I digress. I could not agree with you more. Or less. Whichever. Anyway, well said.

I don't assume there is no such thing just because it has not yet been seen by me. I have no expectations, just observations and thought.

Well, warp speed is simply an imagination of Hollywood to make the whole Star Trek series possible. Imagine you would even hit a speck of stellar dust at such speeds! Earlier, some imaginator invented Superman, Peter Pan and other flying objects (don't try it yourself). You are right AD, all very entertaining and good for your own imagination!

@BS:
If other life forms could live extreme long lifes and travel at any speed, we would have had visitors already. Look out the window, are you seeing any?

And I though Star Trek was a documentary. I'm crushed.

Am I seeing any visitors? Maybe so, maybe not. Do you know that I am not seeing them? I'll answer for you, no, you do not.

[Did you see that "comedy" (heh heh, that's what they called it, but it was a documentary, actually), Men In Black?] The point would be that you wouldn't necessarily know if you were seeing them.]

I have no problem with anyone only believing what they see, what I don't understand is that so many people choose not to look for possibilities beyond what they see.

>>the fact that a ship of any kind cannot travel faster than the vacuum speed of light (due to the laws of physics

We don't know if that hold true throughout the universe. Who says we can not travel at worp speed like they do in Star Trek?

I love that documentary. It never ceases to amaze me though how little deviation there isis in the size of the aliens they encounter, and that they mostly speak english.

Light limit. While it doesn't completely preclude the possibility of making the journey, the fact that a ship of any kind cannot travel faster than the vacuum speed of light (due to the laws of physics if I recall correctly) means that a trip would take a vast length of time. The nearest extrasolar star, after all (technically that should be stars, as there are three of them) sit somewhat over four light-years away, meaning a journey from them would take at least that long. And I'm fairly sure they don't have planets; the trip from a planetary system would be, by definition, longer.

I'd think someone actually walking around the world would be pretty impressive, actually...or did you simply mean 'travelling' around it?

They've taken years to get here, and they'll just take one look and say 'skip it'? Not even take the time to stretch whatever leg-equivalents they have out?

I believe it could exist, I simply find it unlikely that the human race will ever find out. Which side of the options you just gave does that fall on?

Are you presuming a steady-state universe? If we go with the big bang theory, then by definition it can't be infinite because it's been spreading for a finite amount of time since it began, and it is presumed to have begun at a single point, which would give spatial limitations to the area within.

I'm aware of the limitations of our notion of the universe. I happen to …

I don't believe if UFO is present. i think UFO is superstition....

And why is that?

What I am getting from this is that doing a job
"well enough" is the "perfect solution" in most cases.

It's all in how we define "perfect solution" ... what we are willing to give up in the name of expediency.

If you talk about visitors from outer space, I would say 'no', since distances are simply too far. It would take thousands of years of travel in even the best case.

If you talk about loonies, dopers and drunkards seeing something strange, then I would say 'of course!'

The distances are too far for who?

That is true for us certainly, at this point in our developement. But it is not beyond the realm of possiblility that some other civilization could have developed methods that bypass our limited technological means.

It is also conceivable that individuals within some race could live millions or billions of years, so that travel from there to here would be no more impressive than, say, walking around the world would be for one of us.

Finally, we could appear to be so insignificant to them that they simply take a look and move on. We might be no more to them than, say, a bit of mold on an orange peel generally is to us.

Anyone who disbelieves in the possibility of life elsewhere either wants it to be that way or has never thought of the possibilities at length.

In an infinite universe, there is infinite possibility. It seems rediculous to judge what might be happening "out there" simply in terms of our personal limitations.

with my own eyes

Which is more important to you most of the time? Getting the job done "well enough", or achieving a perfect solution?

A preponderance of red and black turn me off instantly. Unless handled very well / artistically, they simply seem to indicate immaturity. But then that might not be a bad thing.
Anything on a black background likewise evokes images of hackers and kids, that is, it does not give a professional appearance.

But what do I know? I'm a relatively "stodgy" old guy, who really doesn't buy many auto parts from the internet. A fair amount of old VW stuff. The sites I buy from more often than not seem to use some blue and some red, on a white background. www2.cip1.com/

It's not that I see a "patriotic" scheme, it's just that blue is appealing, and red catches the eye.

Beauty is absolutely only in the eye of the beholder, and I am very like NOT your intended audience, those are just my preferences.

So if I don't like it, that is not necessarily a bad thing for you.

It's doesn't hurt that 1. they have some of the best prices around, and 2. searching the site is easy, and 3. they have good part numbering and good descriptions. those things are easily as important as colors. If people can find the parts and the prices are very competetive they will buy.
You can capitalize on virtually any "look" and do well with it. Your look will largely determine your audience and there is nothing wrong at all with appealing …