zapatos

Well that clearly states energy is some "form of physical change" so its obviously something. Im not even tryin to define energy, as i stated it defines itself by already existing. what i show is how to create energy.

I was responding to your question, "you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?".

How do you know Australia even exists?! Because you have seen it on a map? Because you have talked to someone who has been there? Because you have been there? Because you have talked to someone you has seen it in space? Because you have seen actual pictures or footage of Australia from space to see that it's acutally there? Even if you have done all of these things, you still CANNOT know one-hundred percent that Australia exists. Until you go into outerspace and see Australia relative to the other continents yourself, you will never know... And even then, the glass you were looking through could be an illusion. The entire world is a conspiracy against you, making you believe that Australia exists!!

 

So how can you make such a cosmic assumption that an omnipotent God exists, when you don't even know if Australia exists or not...

Do you believe Australia exists? I mean, maybe not 100%, but enough so that you believe it is probably so? Confident enough that you would buy a plane ticket, board the plane, and put your life at risk, since if it is not there you are going to have to land in the middle of the ocean? Will you act out your life as if it exists, talking about Sydney without a smirk on your face, believing people when they tell you they've seen koalas and kangaroos on their vacation to Australia? Would you be willing to bet all your worldly possessions that it exists? I'll take a chance that the answer to these questions is yes.

So how can you have so much faith in the existence in a hunk of rock you've never seen, yet find it so incomprehensible that someone else can have the same faith that God exists?

Wait, did you say you did this in outer space?

you seem to know alot, who is this "someone"?

Try looking in the link you provided.

energy has many context's, how can anybody define it as one thing? if it can be defined as one thing then it must be something, if it is something then something that is nothing must not be energy. 100 years ago IC's didnt exist, they do now, somewhere in the last 100 years a form of energy was created.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

 

The dead person and their dead relatives don't care.

The further in time you move from when the person died, the less the opinion of their decendants (or others with a vested interest) matters.

The less effort the relatives (or others with a vested interest) put into caring for the remains, in other words if they effectively abandoned the remains, the less their opinion matters.

Any display of remains should be respectful.

From my perspective the decision on whether or not (and how) to display remains should in large part be based on the above.

sarcasm is usually can only be identified by a tone of voice we can't hear your tone so we have to assume that you are being serious because there is no indication otherwise

Yes, I'm sure you must be right.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8100000/Sarcasm-the-big-bang-theory-8135257-500-281.jpg

Click on the down arrow next to your name in the upper right hand corner of the screen to get the drop down. Choose 'My Content'. You can also find it by choosing 'Find My Content' on your profile page. Now that you have a post you ought to be able to find it.

I don't yet understand this very well, but it seems it is not uncommon for people who lose their vision to hallucinate. It seems that the brain expects visual input to process, and if it doesn't get that visual data it makes something up.

I'm wondering if the process of dreaming is any way related. The brain receives data all day long and then that input is suddenly shut off. Is it possible the brain is inventing data in a similar fashion to the way it is invented for people who have lost their vision?

My mother has been going blind over the past two years due to problems associated with age and diabetes. She is completely blind in one eye, and within the past couple of weeks her vision sometimes drops to almost zero in the other eye.

She now has regular hallucinations, usually of people, little girls in particular, as well as flowers and other things she is familiar with. Doesn't matter if her eyes are open or closed.

The hallucinations of the little girls are particularly vivid. She can tell me what they are doing, what they are wearing, and they often come up and pat her on her hand. She cannot feel the hand patting or hear them; only the visual hallucination.

She is well aware that they are hallucinations although sometimes it takes her a while to figure it out if the person seems to fit in with her environment, such as seeing someone walking down the same hall she is in. The other day when we were talking she suddenly said "This is really wild! I wish you could see this." She was watching two girls playing.

Has anyone had any similar experience or been around someone who has been through this? Can we expect this to fade over time? Any likelihood she might have disturbing hallucinations associated with blindness? We knew this could occur but didn't realize the extent, and I would like to hear anything anyone has to say.

Thanks.

If you suggest new things on here, the very few people who do respond usually respond negatively. When you argue science fact, the moderator usually will be a douchebag and stop you, EVEN in speculations. Then they lock your topic if they don't like the direction it goes. So who really cares why you would post a new idea. What you should do according to this site is take your new idea and shove it up your own ass.

I work with a person who finds that nearly everyone she has to work with is basically a total jerk. She is always amazed that so many people can be like that. Interestingly enough no one else from work seemes to have problems with any of the others at work. They only have difficulties with her. It's interesting that even though she is the common denominator, it never occurs to her that perhaps the problem may be with her, and not all of them.

Maybe it is just me but I find your regular denigration of Christians to be rather pointless. And now you are moving on to native Americans. I'm curious as to why so many of your posts follow in this vein.

zapatos; We're talking the Federal Government and in the US, believe it or not, generally speaking the Federal as no business in what people purchase or what's in the marketplace to purchase from.

If the Federal Government passes a law and it is not struck down, then under the Constitution it is valid for them to be in that business. Doesn't matter if you or I think so or not.

While this may seem trivial in the overall realm of the marketplace, one thing will generally lead to others things, maybe even some day to who provides Health Care...oh my, well maybe what kind of car you buy...oops forget about GM, well who knows what's next.

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE.

I hear people complain about the cfl legislation and wonder why this relatively minor requirement bothers people so much. The poor legislators have voters yelling in one ear about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and when they do something to reduce the energy needs of the country, they have voters yelling in their other ear about how they don't want to have to give up their light bulbs.

Too many people want the government to take care of our country's problems, but only so long as it doesn't affect them personally.

If the government cannot even implement a change that the voter does not find 'objectionable' because it is such a massive imposition on his right to choose, what chance do we have to tackle the really big problems?

It only took TEPCO about two weeks to realize what had been so glaringly obviously to many - namely that the company is largely unprepared to deal successfully with the Fukushima catastrophe on its own. Reuters reports that TEPCO, which has conceded it faces a protracted and uncertain operation to contain the crisis, sought outside help, asking help from French firms including Electricite de France SA and Areva SA. The question now arises whether it is too late for any help to come, and how fast before the sudden inlfux of new cooks spoils the radioactive broth. The news comes after TEPCO announced highly radioactive water has leaked from a reactor at Japan's crippled nuclear complex, as environmental group Greenpeace said it had detected high levels of radiation outside an exclusion zone.

 

From Reuters:

 

Reflecting growing unease about efforts to control the six-reactor Fukushima Daiichi complex, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) had appealed to French companies for help, the Kyodo news agency said.

 

The plant, 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, was damaged in a March 11 earthquake and tsunami that left more than 27,000 people dead or missing across northeast Japan.

 

Fires, explosions and radiation leaks have repeatedly forced engineers to suspend efforts to stabilise the plant, including on Sunday when radiation levels spiked to 100,000 times above normal in water inside reactor No. 2.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/tepco-finally-seeks-outside-help-pot-calls-kettle-radioactive-government-says-not-trust-gree

This does clarify your meaning, thank you.

 

I still question why Islam as a whole should be linked to specific extremist acts, though. Again, if Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates the death of gay people by attending their funerals and preaching that "God hates fags", I don't even link that sentiment to all Baptists, much less all Christians.

 

Extremists have many different ideologies. When certain extremists happen to be a religious leader, doesn't that just make them a more dangerous, infectious extremist rather than a leader of a dangerous, infectious religion?

 

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

It seems to me to be a matter of degree. Very few people act like Fred Phelps or shooters of abortion doctors. And when they do they are roundly condemned by nearly everyone in the organization they belong to. Thus people don't tend to correlate the actions of these to the organization they belong to.

There are relatively more people who are willing to strap on explosives and give their lives while invoking the name of their god because they believe their religion tells them it is just. If someone burns a bible I don't necessarily expect that someone will die because of it, but if a church in Florida burns a Koran I feel confident that people will soon die. If someone writes a book critical of Islam I expect that person has just put their life at risk. When I hear of a man killing his daughter because she shamed the family, I am not surprised if it turns out he is Muslim.

At one end of the spectrum you have people like Phelps. Generally people will not criticize the Baptist religion because one person who is Baptist takes an extreme view of that religion.

On the other end of the spectrum you have people like the Neo Nazi National Alliance. Almost everyone will agree their group is linked to anti-semitism.

And as you move from one end of the spectrum to the other, you move from finding no links to the organization to feeling there is a link with the organization.

I think Islam falls somewhere between the two extremes. Not enough extremists to feel the religion is violent; not few enough extremists to feel the extremists in no way represent the organization; but enough extremists to feel there is some connection between the extremists and the organization.

Another example is unions in the US. If I said unions are historically supporters of Democrats, I think that is about right and I wouldn't hear too many objections. But of course not all unions or their members supports Democrats, but enough of them do to let people make that connection.

And I think that is what has happened with Islam. Enough violence takes place in the name of Islam for people to start making a connection between the extremists and the religion. Not really accurate and not fair to those who are not extremists, but what are you going to do? That is going to be the perception of many.

Again, saying that, "if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not" is a misrepresentation of Islam. Not all muslim religious leaders support violence, in fact the vast majority don't. Some Christian leaders preach intolerance of certain lifestyles, but it's a misrepresentation to say that Christianity hates gay people.

I probably would have been better off saying "if some portion of the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked in those particular cases whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not". That would have prevented any confusion about my point of view, which I agree is important when discussing these types of issues. It would have been less important if I had been talking about baseball. It wouldn't have mattered as much if I said 'The Yankees had a bad season' instead of 'Some aspects of the Yankees season was bad'.

Point taken. I'll try to be more precise next time.

It may not seem valid because you have misrepresented the situation. The vast majority of muslims are NOT motivated to commit acts of violence, and only a small fraction of muslims are so motivated.

 

It may be more relevant to say that extreme stances are what characterize terrorism, whether they be religious, political, cultural or economic in nature.

I'm not sure in what way I have misrepresented the situation as I gave no percentages and didn't use words such as 'majority' and 'minority'. But anyway, maybe the question is not so much if people are motivated to commit acts of violence, but whether or not the religion supports acts of violence. Because if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not. Just like I'd say Nazism supports racism because that is what the leaders taught, whether or not it received much support from all those in the Nazi party.

zapatos,

Your particular choice of words suggest that you think that a majority ('many') of Muslims wants to commit acts of violence while a minority ('some') do not. I think you fully deserve to be shot down in flames, like you anticipated yourself already. But instead, I think I'll just report your post for breaking SFN rule 1c.

Your decision to think the worst of me given my history on this site is interesting. Given the following definition of 'many' I'm curious as to how you assumed I meant 'most' instead of definition 1. or 2.

man·y (mn)

adj. more (môr, mr), most (mst)

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.

2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/many

Unless it is because the first time I used the word 'some' I meant 'the minority of ', and the second time I used the word 'some' I meant 'the majority of'.

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

The reason I thought I might be shot down in flames was not because I thought I was making inflammatory remarks, but because of the frequency of knee-jerk reactions to volatile subjects. It's like discussing religion and politics at a party. You almost always get a negative reaction from someone who uses their own feelings and biases to color your remarks.

To CP's point, what expertise do the plant operators have when dealing with problems that are more related to civil or hydraulic engineering, materials science, building a barrier in the ocean to limit distribution of radioactive waste in the ocean, etc.? It seems to me that the further the problem extends beyond the confines of the plant, the more the need for outside expertise.

At the risk of being shot down in flames...

Why should we separate Islam from terrorism? It seems to me that many muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence by their religion and spiritual leaders. And if they are so motivated then why pretend they are not?

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

And the fact that others commit violence in the name of religion has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Islam is a cause of violence.

it seems only reasonable to say things like

"there probably wont be a tsunami this high but we should built this wall a little higher just in case" or "we probably wont see a hurricane higher than category 3 hit these levies but maybe we will so we should make them stronger and higher"

or "this room is kind of important maybe we should put a water tight door on it"

or "things might go wrong here but if we spend a little more it is less likely.

And they did say things like that. And talked about it. And analyzed it. And made a decision. That is risk assessment.

Generally speaking risk assessment is:

1. Identify risks.

2. Determine the probability of a risk occurring.

3. Determine the impact if a risk occurs.

4. Based on the probability and impact assigned to a risk, decide how to mitigate the risk (which is basically reducing the probability and/or impact).

5. Repeat

The mitigation is tricky since you have to consider so many competing factors, such as time, money, regulations, stockholders, current technology, etc.

With unlimited resources they could have built a 100 foot high sea wall. But the consumers of the electricity would not have agreed to such a high electricity bill. So you do the best you can with the resources you have, and decide what level of risk you can accept.

Same thing people do every day when they decide whether or not to eat fatty food, smoke, or drive to the store. Major difference is that someone building a nuclear plant will do a much better job of it.

How much of the lower ocean level is due to precipitation freezing before it runs back into the ocean and how much is due to plate tectonics?

In what way does plate tectonics lower the ocean level?

Groupthink is bad, folks.

 

Problem is actually finding a place to bounce ideas of intelligent people and see if they say, "Actually, that might work."

Those two statements sound mutually exclusive to me. Can you expand on this a bit?

I've been drinking about six cups of coffee a day for 30 years and still get a great buzz! Definitely my drug of choice!!

I don't know if it benefited them in any way, but during the BP oil spill in the gulf, BP's High Interest Technology Team took proposals regarding oil cleanup and methods to stop the leak, from outsiders. Obviously the gulf spill was a slow moving disaster and didn't have much chance of causing thousands of deaths, so I don't know if the solicitation of ideas from outsiders applies in this situation.

However, you never know when someone might have a useful technique that has just not become common knowledge yet. If tepco believes there is no chance that an outsider has an idea that has not occurred to them, I think it is they who are being naive.

In a break with past procedures, the HITT group is taking a significant number of proposals from outsiders. The setup reflects how severe the problem is and how the months-long disaster has caught the attention of inventors eager to address the problem.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20011323-54.html

Poetic Facepalm:

"That argument is as thin as the soup you would get by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death."

--Author Unknown