What does Steven Hawking know?

They should have checked in with Stephen Hawking.

My gut instinct is to say "how dare you? you're getting free food!"

However, just because someone is living in poverty or is disabled doesn't mean they should have to live on what appears to be among the lowest quality microwave meals.

My daughter is likely going to be wheelchair bound for the rest of her life; and while I have high hopes of her becoming the next Steven Hawking, it's probable that she'll need some gov assistance at some point. I cringe at the thought of her being unable to raise complaints loud enough as this angry black lady. That said, this woman is obviously actually living in poverty, look at the wall socket at around the 2min mark.

It's not the most articulate way to put it, but poor communities will understand "Trump ain't playin shitttttttt --fuck this shit... look at this shit yall... I wanna say Trump fuck you and I am not eatin' yo food!......AND!--- LOOK A'DIS BISCUIT!!! Mm! Done fucked up now. Fuck!" And hopefully not fall for the same 'Man of the people' rhetoric in the future.

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;-)

My dogs, and almost every dog I've ever known that doesn't have medical problems causing facial deformity or paralysis, DOES smile when happy. They also wag their tails. If you can't see emotion in a dog's face, I think you need serious therapy (or a new dog). It's clearly there to see.
You picked a cat (cats, who normally don't show much facial emotion) with a facial deformity to 'prove' your point that animals don't show emotion? OK, well, then lets look at Steven Hawking (or any severe facially paralyzed stroke victim)...he never shows emotion, so that proves that people don't smile either, right? That's how I read your argument.

And again....does this... :-) ...have a smile? But it's just a drawing and has no emotion to display...so how can it smile by your definition? It can smile because a smile is upturned mouth corners, and not necessarily an anthropomorphic display of emotion through facial muscles.
EDIT: Ascribing emotional content to a smile is how YOU INTERPRET the smile. The mouth shape IS the smile.

It may look to us like this gecko is HAPPY, but that's mostly because it's mouth is smiling. I think that's the argument you may want to be making instead of the 'animals don't smile' argument.

@BoneRemake, @packo. I think people often make the mistake of thinking that the universe started as a bunch of energy/matter suspended and then exploding into an existing, infinite 3D space; but that is not the theory. It seems to me like the video that @packo linked to is partially suffering from this error--especially when it shows the universe as floating and expanding into a sea of "outside" stars (but it gets many things right--I am still glad you posted it, thanks). As I understand it, the big bang is meant to have *created* the dimensions (including time) and it is the dimensions themselves that are expanding, possibly "into" a higher dimensional space that we are not equipped to perceive.

The usual metaphor (presented by Steven Hawking, among others) is to think of the 2-dimenstional surface of a balloon as it inflates. 2D beings trapped on the surface of the balloon would observe that all points on the expanding surface are moving away from each other, but such people would be incapable of imagining into what, since they have no intuitive understanding of a third dimensions. The balloon also illustrates the concept of "finite yet unbound." The 2D balloon-surface citizen could travel forever in one direction on the surface and never find the boundary; instead he just goes eternally round and round on the balloon which, never the less, still has a finite area even though the border remains imperceptible to the 2d resident. It is possible that the universe is a 3d version of this.

Because it is space itself that is expanding (not matter expanding into existing space), the speed at which two objects "move" away from each other increases in relation to how much expanding space their is between the two objects. In reality, the objects are not moving apart as we normally think of it--space itself is just getting bigger in between them. This means that regardless of where you are in the universe, it will look like you are at the center of a huge explosion with everything else rushing away.

All points (and all space) in the universe were once at exactly the same place, a single point, which means that all points in the universe began in the center and, in a sense, still are at the center from their own perspective. At large distances, this speed adds up until it exceeds that of light, which means we will never see or visit objects that are currently more than X light years away; and the value of X is shrinking so that, in fact, the entire universe will eventually fall behind a relativistic curtain until all the galaxies and even stars disappear eternally from each others' view, with space filling in faster than light can catch up. This does not violate relativity, again because the objects are not actually moving faster than light, there is just a huge area of space growing between them.

I am less sure about this, but I think even the space between the atoms and subatomic particles might take on properties (such as an expanded Plank length) that eventually prevent such particles from getting close enough together for the electromagnetic/strong/weak/gravitational forces to function and that's the end of chemistry.

>> ^packo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV33t8U6w28&feature=related
about 3:35 is where it gives answers
sorry about the long intro before anything starts

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking' to 'Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking' - edited by calvados

So, you think that somebody born with this condition doesn't have the right to exist?

I never said that. I said that defective births are usually still born anyway, or are in cases aborted when the birth becomes risky to the mother.

Fight the good fight? I don't think that really applies, people born with disabilities have no choice but to struggle anyway. You are not giving them a choice, obviously they will strive to survive. My comment was not based around their inability to do this, human psychology more powerful then physical disability.

What am talking about is creating hope through one painful medical procedure to the another. I seen operations like this, its not a fight its painful as fuck.

Steven Hawking's condition were determined while he was still in his mother's womb

Stephen Hawking has ALS, the cause of which no one knows. No substantial hereditary link has been found. So your point doesn't apply here. I mean you could be killing hundreds of potential Einsteins masturbating, that is still not a good way of refuting this. This is the same argument pro-Choice people have.

People learn to cope with the cards they're dealt and we should leave it to them to make the choice to live or die.

I don't think its a choice when you have a medical community intervene on a birth that would lead to death a few decades ago.

I don't know why you are painting me out as some morally depraved bastard, I never said lets just kill her and be done with it, of course the story of her life is touching.

But you are taking one girl aptly called the mermaid girl and pulling out a morally high position out of it. She has the means to progress through this, a nurturing home to help through this. But you aren't accounting for the hundred of thousands of other defective births, I worked with mentally disabled and deformed births in Africa, no one wanted them, there is no socialized system to take of them, it was horrifying to see them to live in conditions of no love.

They were suffering. I didn't like seeing that, I think it would have been better if there were allowed to perish at birth. This girl has the means and support to make it through, most don't.

But I believe human life is nothing special and am frankly quite cold about it, I care about my fellow man of course but being alive is not an achievement or miracle its simply biology and evolution. That's why I never understand the sadness people feel when having a still born child, naming them and then having funerals, he was still born for a reason, his life experience is as peaceful as you can have. Its best to move on and have another child and do everything possible to have a safe birth.

>> ^Farhad2000:
As someone who comes from a large medical family I believe births like these should simply be terminated. It is a life of utter misery and pain for the individual suffering it.
The partial kidney, missing bladder and fused extremities will mean this child will have to undergo operation after operation to simply lead a nominal life that we take for granted.
This is a fact alot of people simply refuse to face overcome with compassion that we can 'fix' defective births.

So, you think that somebody born with this condition doesn't have the right to exist? Fight the good fight like the rest of us? Yea, she's probably going to have a tougher time, but she still has capabilities. I mean if Steven Hawking's condition were determined while he was still in his mother's womb, should we have aborted him? People learn to cope with the cards they're dealt and we should leave it to them to make the choice to live or die.

<sigh> stupid region-locked video and my laziness prevents me from pulling a US VPN to reach it.

>> ^Xaielao:
The main reason I'm didn't vote for Obama in NY is he has so little experience. Not just on running things, but foreign experience. In todays world, having zero foreign experience is just not a good thing. If he got in office he'd be heavily relying on those that do have it, and who's to know what kind of people they are.
I mean look at Bush, he also had zero, and quickly came to heavily rely on his rather unscrupulous vice-president, Chaney. Now Chaney is dramatically more presidential power then any previous vice president and the hubris and uncaring nature to wield it with impunity. Thats not a good thing.


Um, seriously?

You're equating Obama with Bush?

That's like comparing Steven Hawking with a box of rotten onions.

Seriously.

Steven Hawkings makes dance beats? Awesome!