This is true only for things that are separated by time-like (and, being the edge case, light-like) intervals. For events that are separated by space-like intervals they might be simultaneous in my frame of reference but not in yours - i.e. simultaneity is relative.

You mean didn't exceed the local speed of light, which is fine. But that doesn't change the fact that in some other reference frame you arrived 50 years before you left. And if there was a return wormhole at rest in that frame of reference you could come back to earth 50 years before you left.

And that's why scifi and popular science are so keen on warp drives and wormholes - they obey the well-demonstrated limits on high-speed travel while (purely in theory) allowing FTL and time travel.

You're at two events events (leaving one place and appearing at another) separated by what in relativity is called a space-like interval - and by definition there are observers that 'see' them happen at the same time, others that 'see' one happen first, and others that 'see' the other happen first. This isn't a problem because (as far as we can tell) those events can't affect each other.

My best guess as to what you're trying to say is that because you don't end up in your own past light-cone (i.e. the events don't have an inverted time-like separation) there are no paradoxes, no violations of causality, etc. Which is true if this kind of trav ... er ... 'changing position' is one-off, or fairly strictly limited in certain ways.

So you went 100 light years in less than 100 years. That's basically the definition of superluminal. It doesn't matter how it's done.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. "Magic" or not, you'd be travelling outside of your future light cone, and that's exactly the problem - to you and people on Earth it would appear instantaneous, but for some observers you would be traveling backward in time.

On other words, "instant" travel is nonsense because spatially separated things can't happen "at the same time" for all observers. Relativity of simultaneity and all that.

Well, except for all those experiments...

Only if it took 100 years for you to make the trip. Otherwise you will be moving backward in time for some possible observers.

People usually only freak out about behavior in movies that they think other people will emulate, especially things that seem realistic. My parents like to watch lots of British murder mysteries, but they'll be put off by 'bad' language, nudity, or people being rude in the same show.

The people who boycott for the reasons you gave believe that our entire culture is heavily racist and sexist, and movies are part of the problem. But most people aren't corrupt cops.

So dark 'mentor' is the theory that best fits the available data, but you're certain it's wrong because of ... ???. Brilliant!

It's still called that.

Those are names for the warm and cold phases of that oscillation. The only thing that might have changed is that people are more willing to use the Spanish words to describe the phenomenon.

The Southern Oscillation and Anthropogenic Climate Change refer to different phenomena that are explained by different processes. The only thing they have in common is that they both have something to do with the weather.

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Well, it didn't work out well for some of my ancestors when they tried to opt out of the "you're a slave" part of the one-sided "contract" they were born into.

On the other hand, some people realize that answering moral questions with appeals to who can inflict the most harm is stupid.

Interesting. Are pro-choice activists 'hysterical' for pushing their particular "my body, my choice" argument? And do they deserve criticism for making women in Ireland who couldn't get abortions feel bad?

It must be peculiar to have one's center of being and entire sense of self revolve around telling other people what they're allowed to care about. Tell us, what is it like?

You're comparing one, specific procedure on males (circumcision) to absolutely anything done to a female. It's the equivalent of calling everything from cutting a dorsal slit in a man's foreskin to castration to completely removing the genitalia MGM, and saying it's much worse than merely nicking the clitoral hood.

And of course this argument originates in politics. You're not going convince Americans to go ballistic over FGM if they think it sort of like what they're used to (which is, for exactly the opposite reason, why it was called female circumcision to start with - e.g. "Don't freak out, your culture does things like that, too!"). And unfortunately it gets mixed in with gender politics as well.

And democracy doesn't provide a magic mechanism to prevent Puerto Ricans from being denied the right to vote. If the only bad thing you can say about a system is that people are capable of following it imperfectly then you really don't have an argument.

And we've now left the realm of academic discourse in favor of an unhinged political screed...

Right.

Nothing. And in that aspect the US was not practicing the system that Smith was describing.

Almost - Smith presupposed a legal system that (at the very least) attempted to prevent murder, theft and fraud. Capitalism might need something outside of the market, but that's not outside the system.

That's true of every economic system - if someone is willing to lie to get money why wouldn't they lie to get a larger ration? The most you can hope to do is reduce the number of rational reasons to cheat, but you can do that without chucking the whole thing out the window (healthcare, social programs, etc) which is how most of the Western world handles it - and fairly successfully, I might add.