Giles

Originally posted by blike

Why don't we just discover cold fusion, downsize it, and implement it into future automobiles??? :confused:

Mr. Fusion!

1) I agree that they continually refuse to account for them. The problem is that, legally, they have not been bound to reveal them in order to avert war (or 'serious conseqeunces').

2) But not by this resolution, which stipulates that previous UN resolutions are not binding with respect to the consequences of it.

6) Despite the fact that the IRA want to cede from the UK, they do not pose a threat to the stability of our government. And nor do the Kurds pose a serious threat to Hussain's control of the rest of iraq (pending further deterioration of his power at our hands). And with respect to external action, Iraq certainly is stable, due to western intervention.

I agree, pakistan's government is western-friendly, but it is at risk from fundamentalist and/or anti-western tendencies in parts of its population - especially given its instability. Do you remember the TV footage of pakistanis cheering the 9/11 attacks? (I assume it was reported in your country.)

Originally posted by fafalone

1) Ok, but where's the evidence that the thousands of other warheads not accounted for have been deweaponised? There is none, Iraq continually refuses to account for them.

 

2) Iraq was required to account for what happened to their chemical weapons, therefore the deweaponisation should have been in their report. Furthermore, the warheads had been placed in the facility where they were found in only the past few years.

 

6) So a country where the northern groups and southern groups both want to overthrow the central group is stable. Uh huh.

 

And Pakistan doesn't have an avowed hatred of the United States.

They'll have to build a new chip fab first.

And 10Ghz is only a few years if Moore's law holds. about 2.5years.

Anyone remember 'Rambus'?

Originally posted by fafalone

 

(1) The warheads they found were not declared in the report. They "forgot" about them. Ok.

 

(2) It has been made clear by UN members that these warheads should have been declared.

 

(3) It is unlikely the a security council member will use a veto, even if they oppose it.

 

(4) The declaration required them to account for what happened to the weapons that they had. They did not do this.

 

(6) No other unstable state that has aspirations of domination has the weapons of mass destructions capabilities that Iraq does.

(1) I have already explained that the de-weaponised warheads need not have been included, as the orginal wording of the resolution was not clear enough.

(2) Yes, after the event. Iraq can hardly be expected to be clairvoyent.

(3) I know. Because of realpolitik. I'm not voicing opposition on that basis.

(4) I didn't ask you to reassert your statement, I asked you show me where the UN had stated it. I linked you to the text of the resolution, so it shouldn't be that hard if it's there.

(6) Iraq isn't unstable and, while it may have aspirations of domination, doesn't intend to act on them on the present evidence. And we don't even know they have WMD capabilities.

Anyway, pakistan is an obvious counter-example; recent military coup, they do have nukes, and they want to control kashmir.

If the hydrogen is extracted by electrolysis, then hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source in the usual sense.

I doubt we can meet our needs by any other means though.

I believe large scale electrolysis should be more efficient than having gazillions of cars burning fossil fuels. But that doesn't make fuel cells totally clean.

Originally posted by blike

You're plagarising Locke's simple and complex ideas.

Anyway, you could argue that the particular combination is original.

excepting quantum theory, randomness and probability are ideas based on limited knowledge anyway.

Originally posted by fafalone

(1) Omissions in the declaration WERE made. Iraq HAS NOT cooperated fully. Both conditions of material breach are met.

 

(2) The Iraqii statement was not currently accurate. First off all, the warheads they "forgot about" were not listed in the supposedly complete report, second of all, the question has still not been answered, and is required to be answered, of what happened to their stockpiles.

 

(3) A resolution calling for action has been drafted and will soon be presented.

 

(4) Refusing to provide information as to if their stockpiles were destroyed is a PRESENT breach.

 

(5) Yes, it can.

 

(6) Where's the justice in letting the injustice of a maniac dictator continue to oppress the Iraqii people?

 

(7) It is even less advisable, for the safety and security of Iraqii people as well as our nations, to allow him to stay in power with his unaccountedfor biological and chemical weapons.

Firstly I should make it clearer that I believe resolution 1441 to have been absolutely idiotically worded even if you agree with the essential idea that iraqi non-cooperation or non-disarmament is grounds for war. Here I am taking issue with the idea that resolution 1441 authorises war, or indeed can ever unambiguously do anything unless the weapons inspectors manage to find current weapons AND fail to recieve cooperation. Even then another resolution is probably needed.

Even if you believe the UN constitutes a valid international authority, it is not at clear it can (let alone has) mandate individual Iraqi scientists to leave the country for interview. As a letter to the Independent from a british weapons researcher today shows, one might not expect such scientists to cooperate with a hostile power. This undermines claims of non-cooperation.

Blix's report did not demonstrate any material breach, altho it did indicate areas of possible or probable breach. And bear in mind the atomic inspectors say they have received good coooperation.

(1) Not found to be false by the weapons inspectorate, but by the allegations of british and american politicians. Note that substantive evidence has not been released, even to the UN, on this.

(2) Those weren't full warheads they were casings, which the Iraqis are claiming were de-weaponised. As I have explained the wording of the declaration therefore allows them to be exempted.

(3) Fine, I'll probably object to that when it appears.

(4) Where does the resolution stipulate details of past weapons programmes or disposal programmes? It's possible I misread it.

(5) Conceded, although you could have provided some evidence (e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,565882,00.html ). I shouldn't have to back up your statements for you.

(6) I'm not confident we're all that interested in 'justice' considering our record in the region (for example, supporting what you call a "maniac dictator"). And, as some people have mentioned, there is the issue of consistency.

(7) I have dealt with issues of strategic logic already. No one has even bothered to try to counter my argument or its basis.

P.S. I'm only questioning the proposed basis of the war; I'm not yet decided on whether it's ultimately justified. My principle concern is how much damage this sort of thing does in the long term, and its effect on how we conduct international affairs.

Originally posted by fafalone

Well in the case of area 51, seeing it is solid evidence they covered it up. They have since acknowledged tho.

"But Sir! That's where we're building our fake moon landing set."

"Then we'll have to really land on the moon. Invent NASA and tell them to get off their fannies!"

Originally posted by fafalone

The arms inspectors have said Iraq letting them go wherever they want is nothing more than a game of hide and seek. The burden is on Iraq to account for weapons they've admitted to having. I don't see how people don't understand this. They are refusing to explain what happened to weapons they admitted to having; the inspecters have not found any evidence of their destruction. Iraq is also refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed in private. Their declaration, which was supposed to address what happened to the weapons they had at the end of the Gulf War, did not contain any new information.

(1) Even If true, this constitutes breach of the UN declaration in the sense of non-cooperation but not in the sense of the Iraqi statement being shown to be false by the results of the weapons inspectorate. "Material breach" - which under the resolution is neccesary but not sufficient (see point 3) for war - is a condition governed by an 'and' clause and consequently has not been met.

(The UN "Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations")

(2) The Iraqi statement is required to provide "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, andother delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and productionfacilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;" which does not include any specific reference to either abandoned programs or disposal programs.

(3) The UN acts as follows:

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director- General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider thesituation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

This does not specify war.

(4) Previous Iraqi breaches are moot because the UN

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

(5) It is not clear whether the UN can make a pre-emptive attack legal.

(6) Legal authority does not make it just. (it is not clear that the UN's authority should be considered legitimate).

(7) Justice does not make it advisable.

All these points must be dealt with.

(All quotes from the text of 1441 at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200211/09/eng20021109_106531.shtml)

Originally posted by fafalone

So then why is he refusing to account for large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons?

Um, is he?

The US/UK won't release the intelligence data, and all the weapons inspectorate will say is that he isn't providing full cooperation.

His possession of WMD does not legitimise a war, nor is it even neccesary on grounds of self preservation, as I have shown.

Originally posted by fafalone

Disarm = remove weapons and remove an insane and cruel dictator from power.

 

Spare us your ignorant anti-war far-left "but the people of iraq are innocent" spiel.

I've not heard that Hussain can be regarded as insane. Why do you say this?

Last I knew they were innocent; is this ignorant?

We don't know he has WOMD in general. We know he had chemical weapons, and probably still does. however we have been hostile to iraq for a decade; i.e. longer than the duration of the planning of the last wave of terrorist attacks. Therefore if he was interested in, and capable of assisting, a pre-emptive assualt it would already have occurred.

So far he has only used WOMD in his own interest. This tends to preclude using them on us, or at all if we brought the threat of war to bear on that basis. This is only false under the condition that we are already at war.

Under 'peaceful' circumstances he would only use WOMD on us with a guarantee of anonymity. If that were possible, then Iraq would be the least of our worries.

this leads inescapably to either the conclusion that the information released to the public is erroneous and contrary to the governments' declared aims (which seems unlikely), OR that our policy in Iraq over the last few decades has been to protect our interests in the region.

'shocker'.

In its original form, there were no solutions of GR which predicted a static universe. Einstein introduced the 'cosmological constant' because he thought the universe was static. When this was removed again GR predicted a non-static universe (its actual state depending on initial conditions).

The incorrect doppler shift is not a prediction of GR but SR. http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/prl-pi/prl-pi.stm

Bear in mind that space and time are quantised in Planck Units.

MrL

Originally posted by dr_strangelove

Dirac, himself, had no idea why his matrices work. He found them simply by trial and error.

True as far as it goes, BUT Dirac matrices have been shown to be mathematically equivalent to the operations of quantum mechanics for which there is a physical derivation.

NB This is reporting; i cannot carry out the mathematics involved.

....

Can you please show how those results for the clocks fall out of spec. rel. - I am not convinced I can carry out the mathematics reliably myself, and they don't sound right. You don't even appear to check how spec rel affects this.

You say "this conclusion can only be reached if the clocks are preset to run at a rate that is inversely proportional to their energy.".

Firstly, dilation relative to observers will vary and so the apparent rate of the clock will do so.

Secondly, this is (in your example) the energy as measured by observer (or relative to a given reference frame), and would not be constant for all observers. (Energy conservation ofc remains intact within a given reference frame.)

Consequently the clock as specified, and therefore the rationale for your assumption appears contradictory with the experimental data of special relativity.

Once again it may be possible the mathematics fall out neatly in your favour but you need to demonstrate that.

Originally posted by fafalone

It would only effect the theories in it was a common natural state, not a state inducible only by vast improvments in particle accelerators to apply them.

 

I'm open to being proved wrong on this, but you'll have to show me some mathematical proof.

This is the negation of your original statement faf, you do realise that?

Originally posted by fafalone

Saying that an object with mass and size cannot be divided is not logical in ANY field; mathematics or quantum mechanics.

It is if we postulate the assumption 'certain objects/quantities cannot be divided' for the logical rules set.

Or, say, 'only solutions of this equation are permitted values for n', where n is mass.

You'd think that, but unfortunately that would cause certain problems. like destroying the basis of quantum theories, and hence setting physics back over 100 years.

In certain specific cases (fruit fly salivary glands) this occurs; usually polyploidy causes trouble unless the extra chromosomes are disabled. Transcription and tranlation can be speeded up without using extra DNA (check out transcription in the nucleolus during cell growth).

We could choose to define thinking speed like that, but it's tantamount to IQ testing - it doesn't measure (or have any demonstrated connection with) any physical velocity, and varies depending on methodology.

Originally posted by Radical Edward

somehow I doubt saddam would be nuking anyone. It wouldn't be consistent with the way he behaves.

He shot scuds at Israel - and hit - the last time we attacked him, and that time we weren't gunning to remove him. What if he uses chemical or biological weapons (i doubt he has nukes)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2631295.stm

I doubt the Israeli system is 100%, even if it's 'very impressive'. Hence there is good reason to worry this may get out of hand:

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

I don't think he's very friendly with the known terrorist networks either - part of the reason we supported al-qaida et al was to attack saddam. We don't know anyone else capable of that kind of attack.

'Gene for gills' hmmm.

Inactive genes tend to decay in any case.

Both gills and lungs evolved from a small flow-through system with some dead ends, probably with some pumping characteristics (see modern arthropods). Gills still are flow-through, whereas lungs are in-then-out pumping. It's hard to see how you cold go from one to the other without returning to the intermediate, which is simply inadequate for large organisms.

Or, in general, varying characteristics may be a more highly adapted form of a common intermediate ancestor; returning to the ancestral form would be maladaptive to the enviroment and/or other characteristics of the organism, so it cannot be done.

Why not go the whole hog and claim it's a meritocracy?

I'm not convinced that's even long enough to contain all known physics, let alone unify it

I suspect it's more the total lack of gratitude, esp. considering you were one of the people who remarked they needed to brush up on general relativity.