louis wu
-
Posts
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by louis wu
-
-
Well it seems that there is a new advertising campaign coming soon to restore the damaged reputation of the banks.
Freedom of speech, now that is priceless!
For everything else you can use Mastercard.
2 -
That's rather interesting with the abstract of Penrose's paper saying he had indeed found the circles.edit:The first one said they DID find the circles, yet it somehow doesn't agree with Penrose. What's the deal?The second paper also found the circles.edit2:What these papers seem to say, despite the title of the second one, is that the circles DO exist, but they are not evidence exclusively of a cyclic cosmology. If that is the case, then this really wouldn't be a problem with the current model considering the background radiation analysis showing large scale euclidean nature of the universe. It seems to me that the cyclic proponents need to account for why our universe is flat. Doesn't a flat universe indicate that the universe is either the last cycle or the only one?
Is it settled that the universe is now and will forever be euclidean, even considering the actions of dark energy?
In some circles it is a consistent meme that the universe will inevitably approach the parameters of a de Sitter universe. I would struggle to consider a de Sitter universe euclidean.
0 -
BTW, it's fascinating to me that "extradition" is still required within the so-called "European Union". Europe can't even agree on a single definition of rape, but has no problem giving the US a hard time for not submitting to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague.
This simply ludicrous. As has been already mentioned on this thread the US does not have a single definition of rape. The law varies between states, in most US states Assange's alleged actions were legal. Different sovereign countries having differences in their legal systems, how can this be a surprise?
The US also requires extradition between its internal states, so why is it a surprise that the sovereign countries that make up the EU require extradition?
It is the US that is famous for its legal isolationism. US armed forces that kill their allies in friendly fire incidents are not allowed to testify at the inquests of the dead soldiers. The US military never gives full cooperation to such inquests and deliberately withholds relevant information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1520260.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/04/iraq.military
This attitude has lead to much friction between the US and its allies. UK servicemen have many jokes about how how it is safer to not have the US on your side.
0 -
Hm, so far I find it just as plausible that the charges are hard-ball politics as that there is a real case to answer.
"It is quite bizarre, because the chief prosecutor in Sweden dropped the entire case against him, saying there was absolutely nothing for him to find back in September.
And then a few weeks later on – after the intervention of a Swedish politician – a new prosecutor, not in Stockholm where Julian and these women had been, but in Gothenburg, began a new case which has resulted in these warrants and the Interpol red notice being put out. It does seem to be a political stunt."
seems to be a very good point, intervention by a politician.
0 -
One stupid legal decision in Canada has very little to do with the case in hand.
Well it is interesting. It seems to go against Dawkins' famous evaluation of the merits of trial by judge or by judge and jury.
"Should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge."
0 -
Well Penrose has lots of previous in trying to do away with inflation.
I read this 2006 paper when it appeared and thought at the time that he was reaching a bit.
If the evidence he claims to have found is confirmed it will be a remarkable finding, and make the 'axis of evil' look like an insignificant artefact of synchrotron radiation in the Galactic Plane.
0 -
ParanoiA
Is your reasoning the same for all legal cases.
Will you condemn Cheney in the same manner when he is disputing an international arrest warrant?
180 million in bribes might appear to be far more serious charges than the ones against Assange.
0 -
Well in US law (in most states) Assange committed no crime as consent cannot be withdrawn after penetration. So under US law if sexual penetration was consentual, as is apparently the case, then it cannot be withdrawn.
I believe that this is also the case in UK law.
Swedish law may well be different, but I note that the charges do not include rape.
Those who keep saying Assange is a rapist seem to be indulging in hypocrisy motivated by distaste at Wikileakes, as his alleged actions are not criminal in the US (except California and a few other states).
0 -
I don't know who provided this data to wikileaks and I'm not too bothered. I would like to suggest that, perhaps, the reason the did it was not due to loyalty to one side or the other but because they believe that telling the truth is a good thing.
It alarms me that there are people who seriously believe that telling the world that some US diplomat thinks Prince Andrew is a clot, constitutes an act of terrorism.
Are they really that scared of the truth?
I will defend to the death the right of anyone anytime to call Prince Andrew a clot.
0 -
I am firmly on the side of the gadflies who are exposing the powerful.
Declaring Wikileaks a terrorist organisation would be a PR disaster for the US. Saying that people who expose the actual truth about governments are terrorists is kind of ridiculous.
From a few years ago, consider Mordechai Vanunu. Some like me would praise the actions of Mordechai Vanunu. Others might think he is a traitor. By giving Mordechai Vanunu the Eichmann treatment the Israeli Government has given its opponents a stick to beat themselves with. Vanunu is still being persecuted in 2010, and the issue will continue to embarrass the Israeli Government for the foreseeable future.
0 -
My primary concern is that countries need to be able to communicate with one another without the intrusion of immediate public attention to everything they say. Diplomats aren't demi-gods, they don't automatically leap to the right answer every time -- they have to feel their way through quagmires and mine fields with incomplete information, without the benefit of hindsight. We WANT them to be able to talk to feel each other out and search for common ground without having to worry about whether their words will be misinterpreted not only by the people they're currently talking to, but by the public in a whole different way.
Well how about if official representatives of the US government no longer try to pervert the cause of justice by protecting kidnappers from arrest warrants? Would that be a good thing?
from the NY Times
Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”As a citizen of Europe, I am broadly in favour of kidnappers going to jail, and in general the rule of law. I kind of do not want anyone to be above the law, and especially not the CIA.
What would the USA do about a foreign intelligence service abducting its citizens?
0 -
Movie scripts generally ignore any inconvenient science, for supporting examples see virtually any movie ever made; especially ones of the action genera.
For a plausible method, could your main character visit the gardener's dentist and swap some dental X rays?
Teeth tend to come intact through most things that kill people.
0 -
Effusion is the name for gasses passing through a small aperture.
It is mediated by Graham's law, and can be applied to mixtures of gasses up-to a point.
Graham's law can be applied to purify gases in an analogue to reverse osmosis.
0 -
If you mean slag from smelting of ferrous materials; don't bother, there is unlikely to be much lead in the slag.
0 -
Originally Posted by louis wu View Post
It should be simple for a girl like you!
louis wu, personal comments such as this are unacceptable, as they are a distraction and detract form the discussion. This is a thread about actions of countries and groups of people, not the individuals posting here.Well I do not wish to be offensive.
However I do feel that this comment was a simple and inoffensive joke which mooeypoo got.
Is is possible that this is moderation with too heavy a hand? Too much moderation will stifle discussion, and surely a little levity is welcome at times.
If mooeypoo indicates that she was offended by the remark I will apologise at once.
0 -
Mooeypoo
in response to your last post.
Well I do not think that Israel are the sole villains of the peace by any means.
Hamas is conducting a terror campaign or asymmetrical warfare, call it what you will.
The rocket attacks are rather ineffectual with something like 10 deaths in 10 years. The suicide bombing campaigns are far more effective, and not dissimilar to the bombing of public places in the UK & Ireland troubles.
I might feel that the blockade fails the humanitarian test, but the blockade has been in place for some time without any legal challenge and before recent days there was no prospect of any legal challenge.
I feel that the intervention in international waters has been a PR disaster for Israel. Apparently there have been anti-Israeli demonstrations in Greece in support of the dead Turkish activists (something I would have thought impossible). If Israel is determined to continue the blockade it will have to keep interventions inside territorial waters where international law is clear that Israel has stop and search rights on any ship of whatever flag. I have heard speculation that Turkey may send naval ships to accompany any new Turkish blockade runners.
I think that possibly the blockade is doomed. Activists will believe they have a weak spot in Israeli policy and are going to keep chipping away. It might be best for Israel to give up the blockade voluntarily in order to extract worthwhile concessions from Hamas in an agreement that is public knowledge (so that if Hamas reneges the fact is obvious)
I would start building bridges with Hamas first because they have shown some control in the past over their terror campaign, and also because I have the possibly erroneous impression that they are less corrupt than Fatah.
So here is my simple masterplan. All you need to do is overcome the accumulated hatred of the last few decades and get on with it.
It should be simple for a girl like you!
0 -
Considering the bolded, it sounds like your ideological preferences are coloring your judgment. Plenty of observers at that time questioned the authenticity of Hamas' promises in 2008, without resorting to Fox News, Republicans, or conservative partisans. It's unfortunate to see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict dragged into the Western liberal-conservative political conflict like that (surely they have enough problems without us piling our ideologies onto the fire), but I suppose this is not entirely unexpected.
Too many people seem to have forgotten that the 2008 "cease fire" was entirely one-sided. Hamas never stopped firing rockets into Israel, and Israel stopped shooting many times. You're not wrong to hold Israel responsible for its own errors and bad judgment. You're just wrong to view them as entirely responsible. Even Jimmy Carter doesn't do that.
That wasn't the case with Northern Ireland either, btw. In no way was the resolution of that conflict as one-sided as you make it out to be. BOTH parties had to work hard to bring it to an end.
Such will almost surely be the case with Israel and Palestine as well.
A simple search seams to turn up the statistic that the 2008 Hamas ceasefire gave a 97.5 reduction in rocket attacks which seems very useful and effective to me.
You are missing the whole point of the IRA troubles analogy which was a situation facing the UK government from perceived and feared terrorist organisations which which eerily matches that faced by the Israeli government.
Of course the IRA made concessions that stuck in their craw. So did all paramilitary organisations and the UK government.
Both Israel and Hamas would have to do the same.
0 -
I don't believe that to be the case, and frankly there is no justification for shooting rockets into civilian areas, regardless of what the Israelis have or have not done.
Also Hamas as not at all comfortable with President Carter's 2008 "peace plan", which actually wasn't even a peace plan so much as a few suggestions during an overblown fact-finding mission. As far as I'm aware there have been no circumstances under which Hamas was actually willing to recognize Israel, just political maneuverings that looked as such.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665
http://justworldnews.org/archives/002880.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1
You are wrong; a firm 10 year truce with Hamas recognition of Israel's right to exist was on the cards. Still perhaps Bush and the neocons didn't like the idea. Someone somewhere did not want peace.
0 -
I am not sure I can answer this, as your statement seems to flatten a complex situation to a rather black-and-white innacurate depiction for *both* nations.
Israel suffered terrorist attacks on its civilians and had to do something. When the palestinian authority had Arafat, there was at least *some* control over the terrorist organizations during talks, and the situation looked much different - the borders were open much of the time, there was trade and cooperation.
However, Israel cannot live with a situation where terrorists are allowed to explode busses, hotels and restaurants and pubs willy-nilly. When Hammas came to power it not only stopped controlling the terrorists, it declared its SUPPORT in those terrorists. As a result, Israel could no longer afford any open border policies. Any attempts to speak to the Palestinians seems to be moot when they claim they want to kill all the jews.
You want me to answer you, but you don't answer me at all. How do you speak to a group that declares it doesn't recognize your right to exist?
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedPeace is a two-way process. At the very least, we can agree on that, no?
The UK made peace with organisations whose constitution was dedicated to the destruction of the UK and Irish governments. These organisations acted with dedication, terror and great force to achieve these aims.
To claim that there are no parallels between the two situations is ridiculous. Hamas will have to give up things for peace. Israel will have to do the same.
In Europe there is a perception that Israelis do not want peace. Your attitude that we will not even talk to Hamas to see what concessions they want from us and what they are willing to give us seems to reinforce that perception.
As an aside. I assume that you have done national service. Were you not taught that in combat situations a unit must not be too closely spaced? Such has been standard infantry doctrine since before WWII.
0 -
Somehow I doubt that the IRA's founding goal was the destruction of England. They just wanted freedom, which is easy enough to grant.
They were free citizens of a democracy all along. Perhaps you had better read the provo IRA charter circa 1968, which stated that the governments of both the UK and Ireland were invalid and illegal. The only legal government was the IRA council which the IRA would impose by force.
I am typing this from memory so it may not be word perfect. Of course there was a selection of other organisations as well some allied to the IRA and others opposing them. It was simple luck that the entire government was not killed at the Brighton bombing.
Hatreds ran very deep on all sides, yet peace seams to have been embraced by all in the end.
Perhaps Israel should try peace they might find they like it.
0 -
mooeypoo
I would like you to address the rest of my post on how the UK made peace with implacable enemies who killed over 2500 people in a terror campaign and nearly wiped out the whole Government.
If it can happen once for us why can it not happen to you.
0 -
Let's not make things personal, and try to avoid mockery, please, okay? The thread was great so far - we've managed to have calm and relaxed discussion. Let's try and keep it up.
I'm well aware of the agreements that were proposed with Hamas and with Fatah, and I will say again that as long as Hamas states *OFFICIALLY* that they intend for the destruction of Israel, then there is no point to talk about peace talks with Israel.
How can you discuss peace agreements with anyone that vows to kill you and refuses to drop this vow?
~moo
Well I apologise for finding the fact that you informed me of the presidential dates of Jimmy Carter mocking and patronising.
As for the Hammas charter it is just a piece of paper. For peace everyone has make compromises. The compromises will be very hard to accept for some people on both sides of the divide.
The UK reached peace with the IRA, an organisation whose constitution resembled the Hamas charter in some regards. The town where I live was bombed by the IRA. Still no-one I know prefers the previous situation to the current peace.
The IRA killed royalty in Mountbatten and nearly got the Prime Minister, Thatcher ( I have mixed feelings about that one) and her entire government: but we made peace, why can you not even consider trying it.
0 -
Hamas declared it doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and vows to continue the fighting. There were limited cease fires but overall, in the past 8 years, continuous rockets were fired on Israeli cities in the southern part of Israel, forcing thousands of people to live in bunkers.
Hamas' official charter calls for the elimination of the State of Israel. The UN and many other countries in the world posed a condition to Hamas for the beginning of talks that it drops this call so that talks can begin. Hamas refuses to. I'm not sure how a country can talk peace with a group that vows to destroy it and refuses to reconsider this vow.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_charter.pdf
First, we will need to look at the proposed plan before we jump to the conclusion that Israel is violent and power hungry. For that matter, if the proposed plan was harmful to Israel security (and I'm not talking about "giving up territories" - Israel has done that before both with Egypt and with the palestinians) then there's little surprise Israel wouldn't accept it, isnt' there?
But I must wonder if you might be confusing Hammas and Fatah here. Jimmy Carter was president in 77-81, and Hammas was formed in 1987. It's doubtful that the proposal was in front of them.
Fatah is a completely different entity, and Israel *is* communicating with Fatah and has a fairly decent cooperation (more or less) with the Fatah-controlled west bank, as was pointed out earlier in this thread.
General overview of the differences between Hamas and Fatah: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm
~moo
On April 21, 2008, former US President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas Leader Khaled Meshal and reached an agreement that Hamas would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the territory seized by Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, provided this be ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas later publicly offered a long-term hudna with Israel if Israel agreed to return to its 1967 borders and to grant the "right of return" to all Palestinian refugees. Israel has not responded to the offer.[40][41] In November, 2008 Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, de jure Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and de facto prime minister in Gaza, stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1949 armistice lines, and offered Israel "a long-term hudna, or truce, if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights."[42]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
This was 2008. Are you sure you are Israeli? You seem out of touch with current affairs.
0 -
Simple. Self-defense applies whether you are defending yourself of your buddies. While some soldiers are willing to risk their lives (to varying extents) to save civilian lives, not too many soldiers are willing to allow their buddies to die, for any reason at all. If you have a soldier on the floor surrounded and being beat on, his buddies can't shoot for the legs since they risk hitting the buddy they are trying to save, and also it would be much less effective than a head shot.
The shots from multiple directions is more interesting. It is doubtful that a soldier walked around someone shooting them all over, and said person remained standing during that time. Or, maybe several soldiers shot him over a prolonged period while he remained standing. A more likely explanation is that said person got shot near-simultaneously by several soldiers. Now, it could be that the soldiers all pointed their guns at the guy and said, "OK we all shoot him on the count of 3. 1, 2, 3!" To me this seems less likely than that the guy did something particularly dangerous (such as attempt to stab or shoot someone) and instantly got gunned down by several soldiers.
As to why I said execution style killings don't fit any of the facts, is because such killings require the killer have complete control over the victim. Apart from that not being the case (consider how many soldiers got badly wounded for example), but multiple bullets used also contradicts this.
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts mergedI suspect your inability to imagine how you might be wrong is showing here too. What you have here is called a strawman.
Well I guess we will have to maintain our separate positions on the issue.
I found your scenarios very unconvincing. Shot by several soldiers in defence of one man under attack, with all shots fired from within 0.5m.
I am not in the IDF, but basic training dictates that trained soldiers in combat situations do not group so closely lest they are all taken out by one grenade or burst of fire. Keep some separation from your colleagues is basic stuff.
Do you not find it possible that training designed to deal with suicide bombers came into play?. I believe EDF elite commandos are trained to kill wounded possible suicide bombers. Get the kill in quick, however possible. in case that bomb gets activated.
An EDF man under attack gets several shots off and then ingrained reflexes lead him to finish off a downed opponent.
0
Japanese nuclear reactor problems??
in Science News
Posted
One thing that I have not seen mentioned here, might be a factor in the poor usage of shipped in generators.
Japan actually has 2 completely separate grid systems, one for the East of the country and one for the West. One side runs on 50Hz and the other side at 60Hz. Equipment from the non tsunamied West of the country is probably unusable on the East side of the country. I am not an electrical engineer but a frequency switch for equipment is probably very difficult without rectifying AC to DC and then back to AC at the new frequency. Components to do this for presumably 3 phase diesel generators would be hard to source.