Surely that's only not menacing if I've had an appendectomy?
I'd imagine that whether or not this message is interpreted as "menacing" is dependent on the recipient?

This book was the core of the first two years of my degree. It covers a wide range of topics and generally provides good worked examples, if that's the sort of learning that you're wanting to go for. http://www.amazon.co.uk/University-Physics-Harris-Benson/dp/0471006890

I don't think this technique can reveal what's good about Dostoyevsky, nor indeed what's good about computer games. It can, however, show you whether or not something else has the same neurological effect as reading Dostoyevsky, or playing a shooter, or whatever. If they were able to recreate the identical (your word) neural stimulation, then I would - but I don't think they'd ever be able to recreate it identically, so that's perhaps not so important.

I've not read TFA, but I'm not convinced that they are making that supposition. Any reason why they wouldn't consider the build up (which they can presumably also track) to be an equally important part of the phenomenon? They may be missing the point entirely, but they're the neurologists, so I'd hope they wouldn't disregard that sort of thing.

And reading something interesting doesn't count as a specific form of neural stimulation?

Surely they'd be better off striving to have the most enjoyable experience possible? Especially if you say that they'd still be "no substitute." A sniper game that involves hiding in the one place for 2 days straight, for instance, may be realistic, but why would anyone want to play it? Give me TF2 any day.

So some of your states don't kill people? Looks like the rest are keeping nice company.

Even though it's rhetorical, I couldn't answer the first question without knowing what you mean by "justice" ... I suspect you're thinking more about vengeance, or at best, mere punishment. Regardless of the offense, the purpose of prison is supposedly threefold: to protect society, to punish the perpetrator, and to rehabilitate them. If you feel that the state cannot punish someone enough by merely locking them up, it doesn't seem like the biggest leap from that to justifying torture as an extreme form of state-sanctioned punishment.

And here's a rhetorical one back at you: Do you believe that a state killing someone can ever be just? I can think of scenarios where it might be the best option, but I don't believe it's ever just.

Indeed, that's a valid example. But because so many people were involved, I doubt arming the populace would have reduced the killing in that case. I had been thinking more of "western" nations, however.

Whah? Are you trolling, or was that meant to make sense? (If it's a troll, fair enough, Whoosh.)
How could someone ever simultaneously both own and not own a gun?

So how many cases do you hear about where a guy kills a whole class of kids with a cigarette lighter, or even a knife?

In all circumstances? Seriously? I disagree.

I disagree vehemently. It is moral to attempt to end tyranny, provided that you know what you're doing, and aren't just gonna make things worse. (See e.g. US involvement in Afghanistan.) Surely shooting someone because you disagree with them is also tyranny?

Alas, the USA is one of the few countries where the trial by 12 can have you sentenced to being carried by 6. Kinda makes it seem like less of a binary choice.

Indeed they don't, but there's usually a certain minimum living standard required for you to feel happy & content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

*Shrug* fair enough. I can agree enough with your last paragraph that I'm happy to let the rest of it slide.

In other words:
If X is defined as Y, then Z looks like it would be a good measure of X.

So you disagree with my definition of fairness. That's not circular argument on my part. You can either agree with the definition or not. If you don't agree with the definition, the measure won't be valid, but that doesn't make it circular. It's conditional.

But anyway, yeah have you a better definition of fairness and method to measure it?

Well if "fair" is distributing "stuff" equally among the masses, then the difference between top and bottom seems to me to be a good measure of overall "fairness."