H W Copeland

Why would I do that? As I said, the thread was about H5N1. We have all been following the news about this strain and one of the little tidbits of good news was that it is rarely contagous between humans. So, the question remains, how is it likely to cause a pandemic when all one has to do is stay away from birds?

Didja now.... Why would you think that? The thread is about H5N1.

I understand that it is not contagous person to person, so how would it break out in such numbers as to be a pandemic?

I will echo that! What may have saved the day is the fact that natural gas is lighter than air, so if there were ventilators in the ceiling and especially if those vents were close to the point where the leak occured, that may have kept the concentration down to a level where an explosion would not be likely to occure. But, to repeat, when you smell a gas leak, get the Hell out of the area--in this case out of the building. If anuone knows where the shutoff is, shut it off as fast as possible and call the gas co..

As to terrorism being a ligitimate tactic in war, well if it is then certainly the use (by us) of tactics every bit as unconventional are also appropriate. Why should we be bound by the geneva convention's rules of warfare, when our enemy is not? Because we want to think we are "better than that?" In my opinion, it is "better" to save the lives of our citizins than to adhere to rules of war that were writtin to cover an entirely different type of conflict.

I think you will find that far more Japanese civilians were killed during the firebombings than were killed with the nukes.

Now I am wondering, if a photon has mass, exactly how much mass does it have? Has it been measured?

Well I would say that depends on what you mean by "prisoner." If you mean a soldier who fought, wearing a uniform, at the behest of his country, I would say no. If you mean people who fighting under no national flag, who have no rules of conduct, who have no knowledge of, or respect for any so-called "rules of war" then I guess I would say yes, if, as I said, you had really good information that they knew about an attack that would cost many American lives and information about that attack could be used to prevent it.

I keep getting a lot of "web site not responding" messages when I try to post to this forum lately. Anybody else having this trouble?

The problem is that the so-called religious right wants Roe V Wade overturned, and voted for Republicans in the hope that a Republican President would appoint Supreme Court Justices who would do just that. The Republican party, on the other hand, don't want Roe overturned because they know that they are getting a lot of votes out of it (Roe). The right wing has no where else to turn except toward a 3rd party candidate. The last time we had a powerful 3rd party candidate, was when Ross Perot handed the election to Clinton. Alas Babalon.

I thoughtthis sounded a little funny, so I looked it up. I see nothing in the 5th amendment regarding cruel or unusual punishment: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Nor could I find anything about it in the 14th: Amendment XIV. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I think that resisting interrogation requires an unbending will power, dicipline and dedication to purpose. There are drugs that reduce those things to the point that the interrogatee becomes, shall we say--pliable?

You will also need to know the ballistic coefficient of the bullet in order to ascertain the rate at which it loses velocity due to air resistance. It will not be moving as fast when it gets to the target as it was initially.

The only time I would allow torture is if we had a terrorist in captivity and we knew that he had knowledge of an attack against US citizens. Brgore you ask, I would define knew above as having good reliable information to that effect. Reliable to be defined as accurate in the high 90s percentile. In that case, I would use whatever means were necessary to extract than information in order to prevent that attack from occuring. Drugs would appear to be the best bet.

For those who are interested in an analysis of this bill, he/she can find at this web site: http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bills&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0249&Year=2005 Scroll down about 3/4 of the way and pick "justice counsel". It will put the issue in a little better perspective. The following is the quickie route. SUMMARY ANALYSIS The bill addresses provisions relating to the justifiable use of force. The bill creates a presumption, with certain exceptions, that a person has a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or to another person and may use deadly force in response if: • the person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, and • the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or an unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. The bill provides that a person (not engaged in an unlawful activity) who is attacked in a place “where the person has a right to be” other than a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, does not have a duty to retreat and may meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or to another or to prevent a forcible felony. The bill creates a presumption that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. The bill provides immunity from criminal prosecution of, and civil action against, a person who has used justifiable force in the defense of himself, herself, or another person. The bill takes effect October 1, 2005. This bill does not appear to have a fiscal impact on state or local government.

What you say here makes a lot of sense, at least to me. The use of something that an animal finds lying around is not at all uncommon, as has been discussed even on this thread. The creation of a tool is much more important and much more rare.

Isn't that what a bird does when it builds a nest? A Beaver when it builds a dam? I don't think there is a better alternative. It just seems to me that what Beck stated would include nest building and other animal activity where the animal in question altered it's surroundings for a specific purpose.

Which is kind of the way I see it too. To me it would qualify as a tool is it was altered in some way, to do a specific job, or, even unaltered, if it provided a mechanical advantage such as a stick used as a pry bar to move a heavy rock or to roll a log over to get at the grubs and such that are underseath. Humans probably discovered that chips of stone could cut by stepping on them and being cut themselves and at first, simply used these naturally occuring chips to cut things that they thought needed cutting. Who know how long it took before they discovered that they could make their oun cutting tools by chipping certain kinds of rocks themselves. We see apes using twigs by sticking them into anthills and then pulling them out covered with ants to eat, but I wouldn't call that using a tool any more than a beaver using tree limbs to construct a dam. Actually less so.

According to beck's definition of tools, wouldn't a bird building a nest qualify as the use of tools? Building a nursery is perhaps beyond the expertise of many humans. When a beaver builds a dam? Or when a rabbit digs a hole or when a fish fans the soil in the bottom of a lake to create a proper site for the deposit of it's eggs?