NASA's definition of water cannot be taken seriously as they would be looking for spectrographs which reveal the existance of molecules containing two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, in order to decree that there is water..and they dont mean you can drink it, cook in it, or swim in it ! and any mass has gravity ? no, sir ! gravity is a force exerted by the earth on objects around it, including the moon ..

On the other hand, the college atheletes should be made to pay for the chance to evaluate their worth in the real competitive world and it is from this stage they get the confidence to go pro or head towards the olympics or decide that their future lies in a different world. Paying college athletes would render them as professional students, which goes against the very definition of students. If you paid college athletes, then you should also pay college students for their performance as students, which is an idea that is on the border of ethics.

The moon ? NO WAY ! Have seen enough images to know that the moon is not a very hospitable place and is not good enough even as an adventure outing. It has no people, no animals, no birds, no trees, no buildings, no air, no water and not even gravity ! I wouldn't even go if someone paid me, leave alone a free trip

Going beyond the literary translation of the topic, the idea of a person who lives to eat is typically not the one who eats too much, but eats much more than he produces.. i.e., his contribution to the society in general is much lesser than what he takes from the society. They need not be eating too much, but exploit every chance of getting their meals free.

People who eat to live are those who contribute to the society by taking just enough for their requirements and in general leave a surplus for the society ( which gets swallowed up by the persons who live to eat ! )

"people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday." When you add all the possibilities of getting killed, road accident, lightning strikes, building collapses, etc etc etc, we already have a big probability of dying an accidental death.. the probability of getting killed by being mistaken ( or deliberately ) under this pretext would be adding to this possibility .. I could do without adding to this possiblity..

I have seen how evidence can be created / destroyed /tailored to suit a situation post facto. I have seen people turning a Nelson's eye to the incongruencies of evidence. and anyway, the evidences only go to rationalize an act which would otherwise be termed murder.

When someone kills me, and I'm dead, I have no doubt that people around me will say the same, i.e., that " Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked. " The sad part of it is that even those who have known me for years, will swallow it.

There are no universally acceptable morals. What is morally right in one society and at one period of time, may be totally wrong in another society and in another period of time. It may scandalize you, but even today, there are tribal societies in Assam, India, where it is considered morally right for a father of a girl to deflower his daughter. Sorry, that is disgusting, I know, but that is the dimension of morality. Think of the terrorists who think it is morally right to kill the infidels. Think of the church which sold indulgencies. Think of the church which imprisoned Galileo for his heliocentric theory. They, and along with them many near them, thought they were sane and reasonable people and that they had the right to do so.

"calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake." In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take. My life to me is very very valuable and I love my life ! Secondly, 'evidence' is too specialized a subject for me to even think about, I've heard of concocted evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and fait accompli, mistake of fact, mistake of law .....I agree it is not a common situation, thank heavens for that, and I'd love for it to remain that way.

I wish I was really ignorant, but I have personally come across cases where even persons who were in positions of authority under law have been known to have abused their position to settle scores on some one in pursuit of their religious beliefs. I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !

"the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists." In an enterprising situation as contrasted with a gambling situation, one would think of what would be the consequence of the chance materializing, and one would avoid the risk if it can lead to death.

I wish I was really ignorant and not so cynical. I wish that when I hear the official version that the illegal immigrant shot dead a police officer and so they shot him dead 79 times using a full platoon, my mind gets suspicious as to whether the police officers were not acting on their hatred of illegal immigrants. When a person dubbed as a "terrorist" is found to have been shot in the back of his head at point blank range, I wonder what really was the motive..

" They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you." I wish all people's minds were so clear and straightforward as that, but I know different, I know people can imagine ( in the name of god, yes, really ) that they have evidence that you are an "infidel", and that they see that in your death, their society will benefit !

I draw confidence to some of the most valuable provisions of law, which are : let a 100 guilty people escape, but not one innocent person should be punished. that governments should be of law, rather than of men.

It is not so much that I fear my appearance being mistaken for a terrorist that bothers me, as much as it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society. Murder, appearing to be a killing of a terrorist !

No way ! Google has taken computer information systems to the level of ( almost ) expert systems and decision support systems; and using this platform has made artificial intelligence come nearer to possibility.

Even after years of its existence, no other search engine has even come close to what is possible on google.

There is a saying "do unto others as you would be done by ". Living to an old age is indeed a blessing for anyone; you see more of life's bounteous beauty when you live longer. Part of the beauty of life comes in seeing your children grow up and have their own children and then their children having their own. If you are denied this you will never enjoy the extended life.

When you take care of your elders, notwithstanding the fact that they are helpless and sometimes a burden on your privacy, you are sending home a signal to your offspring that this is how you would also like to be treated when you grow old. If you even entertain the thought that you should subject your elders to euthanesia or inter them to old age homes, then that is the life you should also expect for yourselves when you grown old ..

I would treat our elderly people with respect and affection.

no, they are just wrongly distributed. China and India have a vast population which does not have enough land and resources to meet their needs and they are an ancient civilizatiion. On the other hand, US, Canada, and Australia which are relatively new nations do not have enough population to use the natural resources.

Sadly, there is a lot truth in the saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; '

While it is true that the teachers teach, it is also true that the students study and work themselves to the career as bankers or any other high paying jobs by dint of their hard work and application. And some students also make it to the top in spite of bad teachers. and some students become criminals in spite of the best teachers .

Nobody stopped the teacher from going in for top bankers' jobs, and certainly they knew as well as anybody else that teaching is a lowly paid job.

There is also another saying "don't brag. it is not the whistle that is pulling the train "

Public speaking is not a trade or a skill that you need in jobs or ever at all in your life ( except if you get to be an evangelist / politician ). But the discipline of thinking rigorously and articulating your thoughts is a trait worth aquiring for everyone irrespective of the walk of life he enters A public speaker is expected to prepare his speech, by analyzing his thoughts, organising them coherently and presenting them to an audience in a manner that they are able to understand what is being said. He has to be aware of whom he / she is talking to, what their thoughts are and then prepare his speech. He has to be good in his use of language. He has to learn to listen to others who may have an opposite view as his and appreciate the other view point. This exercise itself is of great benefit to people even in their own private lives, even when they 'talk to themselves ',

I feel that public speaking classes should be given as much if not more importance than other subjects taught in a classroom.

The very purpose of classroom teaching, as compared to being taught at home by a private tutor or governess, is to develop in the students an ability to work pleasantly and responsibly in a society. The asking of permission is not so much a show of power as it is of being polite and not disturbing / distracting to the teacher AND the rest of the class. There is a thing called 'decorum', the maintenance of which is the responsibility of all the members of that group and requesting for permission to leave the classroom is a requirement of decorum.

Indians will never learn from history. This nuclear deal that India has signed, is at the beginning of the cycle of history, when India lost its independence to the British. The British East India Company was a commercial outfit that came to India to buy Indian spices and gave the various kings of India arms and ammunitions as payment. To recover their debt , the Britishers East India Company took the payment in the form of rites for collecting taxes, and for which they needed to have their own soldiers and fortresses and clear control over the areas, and so on and so forth till they owned the entire country.

The nuclear deal is for supply of nuclear materials to India, so that India will be able to generate electricity.

Sounds very "reasonable".

The suppliers need to be assured that the supply will not be misutilised, by India, which naturally would entitle them to conduct "inspections" in India. And the intelligence would inform the suppliers that India is creating and holding weapons of mass destruction aimed at attacking the suppliers, and so they should go to India and remove another tyrannical leader ( of course the tyrannical leader has also murdered a large number of innocent people ! ) and hang him high and keep their armed forces till the country becomes democratic again ! (see the pattern ?)

Amen.

Terrorists thrive on the terrorizing, either by the killing they indulge in, or by the publicity they get for their acts, which makes people feel terrorized. Secondly, it is very demoralizing to the general citizens and enforcement authorities to know every time any meaningless killings happen, that the terrorists have scored. People always like to think that they have won, or dont like to think that they have been defeated. In fact, the US would like to send home the message to its own citizens and also to the terrorists that since the 911, no terrorist has ever been able to gain any success. So what if it means not telling the truth ? BTW, what happened about the Air France plane that disappeared for many days in June this year, and its wrekage was found many days later and they say they still don't know what happened ? ;-)

The very definition of sound propounded here is that "it is a sensation in the ear ' is a wrong definition and one that was made up many years ago when science was in its infancy and social beliefs were the law. It is no longer valid. It belongs to those days when it was decreed that the earth was the center of the universe.

Sound, like heat, light, and magnetism are forms of energy and whether humans or animals or any thing is effected by it or not, it exists.

Period.

It does not follow that if India cuts down its carbon emissions, then its economic growth will be compromised. Cutting down carbon emissions may require a build of new technology that will ensure that the carbon emissions are lowered, and the development and deployment of this technology could in fact spur a new economic activity, and in turn spur the economic growth. And in time to come India will have economic growth without carbon emissions, which could pave the way for a healthier nation.

I dont believe that more carbon emissions brings more economic growth.

So I hold that India should cut carbon emissions AND get economic growth.

Fantasizing about murdering people, is a recognized form of stress relieving in situations where you have felt extremely humiliated or wronged and you do not find a way of escaping that bad feeling. When you fantasize about killing that person who has harmed you, you are making it possible to continue with your life. In the absence of such an outlet, you would end up hating yourself and end up becoming a vegetable. It is an act of kindness to yourself.

This has been the theme of many a movie and novel, though presented in more covert ways and people are no longer shocked by the unveiling of such an idea.

There are things to do which the brain tells you to do, and there are things to do when the heart tells you to do. What is always beautiful is when you do what your heart tells you to do.

This idea that unwanted and inconvenient people should be allowed to die is something that the brains of people want done. It is not beautiful.

Have you seen the happiness in the face of some orphaned and hungry kid who receives something to eat ? something to remove the pain ? A hug ? That happiness makes life worth living for all !

No way ! If you got a problem with unwanted and unconvenient people, you got a problem, not them. Leave them to solve their problem, if you can't help them becoming wanted and convenient !

You own the land surface and the land underground and the air space above your land. You can construct underground rooms, and sky scrapers to any deapth or height and this would not be a violation of your rights as owner. This is the legal position.

If a person is merely transiting casually over your land, and you have no reason to believe that he is creating an "easement " over your land then you can not object to that. but you can raise objections to someone using the air space above your land.

For example, if some one in your neighbouring - adjacent land constructs a house which has a balcony which is designed to go over your land, then he is violiating your ownership. Similarly, if someone digs in an adjacent plot and then digs from the underground to under your land, then he is violating.

The only ones who would have the right of easement over your land ( since no one objected to them for so many years ) are the airlines who fly their airoplanes high above your land. Technically they are violating your rights, but they have got the right of easement to do so.

Elvis' style is passe.. nobody in the rest of the world even remember him and even if they do, they remember him more for his looks rather than his shivering voice singing. And he lived in an age when there was not so much television coverage and international audiences. And Elvis got his leg twist style from Forest Gump; Elvis lived at a time when the art of entrapment was not as fully developed as was used against Jackson. Elvis' dances and costumes were more effeminate / pansy /transsexual like. And he was never a born singer, had to use a lot of strategies to foist his singing.

In complete contrast, Jackson was a born singer and dancer, lived singing and died singing. He produced brilliant video songs. He totally destroyed his health and life over the music that he gave to the entire world, not just Memphis. He came up against all odds - being a black, with a father who was known to be a terror to him, and even won ( though a pyrrhic ) victory against people who just wanted to squeeze out the money from him.

Jackson is the King of Pop, Think about it !

Marriages between cousins come under consanguinous relationships and carry with them a greater risk of genetic and recessive disorders to the offspring. This is a risk that may not immediately materialize, but may be the cause of peoblems down the generations.

How I wish I could have convinced you to see that the whole purport of my writing was to convey to you the seriousness of misuse of such a power to everybody ! I can see that you feel that it is a very simple thing, and I have not been able to convince you that by making it morally and legally right to exterminate "terrorists" there is every possible chance of such a provision being misused by the very terrorists whom we are protect outselves from.

I must clarify, I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory, and I mentioned about the various terrorist attacks to illustrate how difficult it is for any one - the law enforcement as well the would be victims - to decide about the terrorists.

We all have our paradigms about how a terrorist looks like or behaves like and to rely on our various paradigms could become dangerous for ourselves. I dont know if I look like a terrorist to some one, and I dont know what he may be thinking of me, which is alright so long as that person is not going to gun me down because in his paradigm I am a terrorist. He will see adequate evidences in me which will push him to believe that I am a terrorist. (I'm sure you have read about paradigm in Steven Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People )

My concern is that going around in a world infested by terrorists is itself bad; it would be worse to that extent, where I could be a victim of not only the terrorist but also someone who mistook me for a terrorist and who thought he would be saving other lives by killing me and that he had the moral right to do so !

Short hair has definitely may advantages over short hair. It is easier to comb, it is easier to wash and dry; would consume less water and shampoo; has a less heavy feeling on the head; is less harmful when it gets wet in the rain. Is less likely to be a grip when fighting..

I vote for short hair !

Short hair has definitely may advantages over short hair. It is easier to comb, it is easier to wash and dry; would consume less water and shampoo; has a less heavy feeling on the head; is less harmful when it gets wet in the rain. Is less likely to be a grip when fighting..

I vote for short hair !