Posts posted by H W Copeland
The H5N1 strain obviously is not very effective at human-human transmissions, else it would've spread all over the world by now. I thought he meant the current not so deadly H9 strains, which can easily be transferred from person to person.
Why would you think that? The thread is about H5N1.0
I understand that it is not contagous person to person, so how would it break out in such numbers as to be a pandemic?0
Generaly a 4-to-1 ratio of air to gas is the most explosive, however this is not carved in stone, The point is that any gas leak should be taken seriously. Check it out with a solution of liquid dish-soap and water and attend to it ASAP>
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..0
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.0
You're kind of twisting things around. A nuclear bomb is a little bit worse than a firebombing run. Whether or not it was launched had nothing to do with morals over civilian casualties, but rather had all to do with the fact that the USA didn't end up going to war with them.
I think you will find that far more Japanese civilians were killed during the firebombings than were killed with the nukes.0
*Does quick calculation*
*Gets a shock*
That's only 5 Km per litre!!!
I do around 800 Km a week' date=' in that car it would be equivalent to 160 Litres / week. At todays prices that would equate to $212 per week (or a third of my total income)!!!! No wonder the sales are dropping.
BTW I also drive a 4WD, but it get the eqivalent of 30 mpg!!![/quote']
Is it? I get close to 6 km pr litre. 5.965 to be more exact.
It looks like it would only use up 28% of your total income.0
Now I am wondering, if a photon has mass, exactly how much mass does it have?
Has it been measured?0
well it went on to say that even when you turn on a flashlight there is a "kick" like recoil' date=' only it`s too tiny to notice.
then they powered up this HUGE mega power laser and fired it at this little piece of black material suspended in a vacuum chamber and the material Moved when the light hit. don`t know if that`s of any help at all?[/quote']
Isn't it possible that when the laser hit it (the black material) that some of the material vaporized and that is what cuased the movement?0
That helps clarify your position' date=' thanks. Earlier, when you said:
it just sounded like you were saying saving American lives justifies torture. It sounded a lot like it. In fact you said exactly that.
Patriotism is very powerful. It should be the glue that unites a country and helps its citizens remember the ideals they stand for. It should never be used to justify evil acts.[/quote']
If you will refer to my original statement, you will see that I specified a terrorist in captivity who knew (we think 97%) of an impending attack on US citizens and that if we could get information to prevent such attack, I would do what it took.
That is not to say that it wouldn't be OK for the British to do the same thing to save British citizens, it is just to say that I would leave that up to them.
It is not so much an act of patriotism as it is an act to save innocent human life.
I would venture that if a poll was taken among the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, one would find that they would be inclined to favor whatever means was necessary to keep something like that from happening again.0
So it's okay to torture someone in the name of our country as long as we're torturing someone who isn't fighting in the name of theirs? I'm failing to see how that distinction wouldn't make us monsters...
That's a lot of highly specific information you'd have to extract from other sources. How do you know your other sources aren't lying' date=' and how do you know that when torture is applied, that the answers you get from the person you're torturing aren't lies? If they are, haven't you just tortured someone for no reason?
The use of torture in any form makes us no better than the Nazis...[/quote']
Well I have no interest in engaging in word games with anyone here.
I said what I said, and I stand by that. Whether or not you agree or disagree with me is not a matter of any importance to me.0
Do you think it's justifiable then to torture any prisoner who we're very certain has reliable information about an attack on US citizens, soldier or civilian?
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.0
What makes this different than torturing any POW you think might know about enemy troop movements or battle plans? Are soldiers different than US citizens? Is attacking civilians what makes one a terrorist?
And how can you possible decide before you torture someone that their information is at least 97% accurate? It's nice that you have these definitions so ready to hand' date=' but who will make these decisions in the field? What list of criteria will they go by to determine accuracy of information that has yet to be tortured out of someone?
You are arguing for torture on the principal of saving civilian lives, but why are those lives so special if we've sacrificed our principals to save them? If we want to wear the white hat we have to be willing to wear the white gloves as well.[/quote']
Actually I am not arguing anything.
I am just relating what I think justifies torture. Saving American lives qualifies in my opinion. If you have another opinion, well OK.......0
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?0
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.
Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.—In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984
I thoughtthis sounded a little funny, so I looked it up.
I see nothing in the 5th amendment regarding cruel or unusual punishment:
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:
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.0
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?0
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.0
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.0
For those who are interested in an analysis of this bill, he/she can find at this web site:
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.
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
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.0
I disagree that the chimp is not using tools. Considering two interacting objects' date=' one as a manipulator, and one as being manipulated, I would say the manipulator is always a "tool" in any situation. If not... what would you call it?
In the case of the stick in the anthill, the chimp is manipulating the ants with the stick (maybe the ants are walking onto the stick out of their own accord, but let's not be pedantic) and I would consider this to be using a tool.
In the case of the dam, the sticks are not tools, but building materials. The dam itself is altering the environment, and should be considered a tool.
If an ant collecting stick is not considered a tool, neither should a hammer be.[/quote']
I suppose it depends on how one defines tools.
I have trouble looking upon a twig, inserted into an anthill, as a tool, although I am not interested in beating any dead horses about it.
If, on the other hand, a stick is used as a lever, (lets say to roll a log over) and especially if a rock is also used as a fulcrum, that is a different story. There would be a case on recognition of mechanical advantage, and I would have to think that tool making would be close to follow.
Please don't ask me to befine "close."0
That would be a demonstration of making tools to make tools. Pliers' date=' power drill, and backhoe are the end products of a long string of tool [b']making[/b]. Remember, you have to have tools to smelt the metal, other tools to make molds, still other tools to asssemble the power drill and backhoe. While you think of these are "tools", really they are much more complex than that.
We are talking tool use. That is, where you take some object in the environment and use it to accomplish a task either without modifying it or with minimal modification. The chimp's stripping a branch of leaves for use as a probe of anthills is minimal modification of a naturally occuring object.
A human picking up a stick and using it as a walking stick is tool use.
Many, many species use tools. A few, like the chimp, can modify the tool minimally.
Only humans, as far as I know, deliberately make a tool in order to make another tool.
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.0
"...when the user holds or carries the tool during or just prior to use[/b'] and is responsible for the proper and effective orientation of the tool”
Isn't that what a bird does when it builds a nest? A Beaver when it builds a dam?
Any confusion about this? this might serve to distinguish between
tools carried just prior to use, and material like sticks and grass used to build a nest, or dirt sand etc.
probly the verbal picking stuff is not important, and we all know what is meant, but just in case....
also HWC fine if you want to supply a better alternative
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.0
If the bird used a pair of needle-nosed pliers to make its nest, or the beaver a power drill, or the rabbit a backhoe, then[/b'] it would be considered use of tools.
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.0
Evidently (from a cursory reading of the article in PLoS Biology journal) the classic book on animal tool use is
Beck (1980) Animal tool behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland Press. 307 p.
to get even minimal clarity in the discussion we need a definition and may as well take Beck's----since he wrote the book on it.
Here is Beck's definition copied from Breuer article:
Tool use is defined as “the employment of an unattached environmental object to alter more efficiently the form' date=' position, or condition of another object, another organism, or the user itself when the [b']user holds or carries the tool during or just prior to use and is responsible for the proper and effective orientation of the tool[/b]” (p. 10 of ). Beck's classic book  defines six different types of tools: objects thrown at predators or rivals, objects used to hit predators, hunting weapons (only hominids), objects incorporated into social displays, objects to clean body parts, and objects made and used to acquire food, such as insects or nuts [1,2].
I wonder what other kinds of animal use tools, by Beck's definition. I think the interesting thing here is that gorillas had NOT until now been observed in the wild doing that. They had been observed a lot in the wild but according to the authors this is the first instance of documented tool use in the wild.
They simply dont say about other animals, like whether some birds or sea otters or monkeys or whatever do or do not use tools (in their wild state). I dont have any information about documented cases of this. Not talking about animals in captivity, or which have been trained.
It would be interesting to have some links to a reliable source, like a peer reviewed journal or quotes from something comparable.
Does anybody have anything (besides what they think they saw on television or heard somebody tell about?) It would be interesting to know more about what animals use tools
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?0
Avian flu threat?
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?