Phi for All

Other than his insistance on strawmanning I actually like the POV that syntax252/darth tater/H W Copeland brings to the board. I think he provides a much needed perspective. But it takes so much time correcting him! I can't stand leaving bad information stay unrefuted. You don't provide more fight than I can handle, H W, you just choose not to follow our rules. You take up too much moderation time. Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible. If anybody has more to add to the Tookie executed thread, PM me and I will reopen it.

If you lack the humanity to see that taking ANY life is something to anguish over, it's no wonder you're worried about someone else looking superior. Mental masturbation, syntax252? How long before I get a filthy PM from you telling me off? When you beat the argument I'm making instead of one you want me to make, I'll let you know.

Run a global forum Search using "blacklight". There have been other threads about this. Appears to be crap, unfortunately.

I wouldn't think sodium would be very good at high temps. Wouldn't it melt pretty easily?

I blame it on alien technology, as described by Douglas Adams (from Wikipedia):

This is where we differ. I would have a problem "excusing" myself for ANY killing. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, just that I would not easily shrug it off just because I saved lives doing it. This last statement is a classic syntax252, where you straw man the argument I'm trying to make by changing it to one you can more easily defend. You are not listening to or responding to what I'm saying, and so you are derailing the thread by making me clarify, over and over, my position. Whatever value I place on one life over another doesn't make killing anyone any more just. Legal exoneration aside, I would still mourn the neccesity of having to take the life of anybody, and would not try to excuse myself of responsibility for their death by the easy expedient of "he had it coming". No one is more entitled to live than anyone else, and I may make a decision to end someone's life based on my own survival or that of others, but I refuse to excuse myself from responsibility for my actions. I may not go to jail, but I won't sleep easily for a long time after, no matter who I saved. If I don't take responsibility, won't my next killing be easier to justify?

That sounds like an endorsement for the death penalty in all homicide cases. Kill them all and they will kill no more. How can you add double emphasis to what I wrote and still ask those questions? My response to you was about justification of killing in self defense. Let's define the term "justify" before you start doing the syntax252 thing, hmm?. I think you're using justify to mean "prove or show evidence why certain decisions or actions have been taken". To me, that's an explanation. I'm using justify to mean "make right, to free from the penalty of responsibility". To me, this is an excuse. I make a great distinction between an explanation (or a reason) and an excuse. I could never excuse myself for killing or allowing someone else to be killed. It is something I would live with for the rest of my life, and I think it would be criminal of me to try to justify away my responsibility. Extremely well put. Why do I always overestimate the need for clarity when writing?

I don't think that's the point, especially since you're looking only at the economic issue. The individual is saying things are looking up, but the country as a whole has been defiled in their eyes. Again, if the US were invaded, even if the invader cleared up what they thought was wrong with us, wouldn't we still be a bit cranky about being invaded in the first place?

It's hard to fault the Iraqis for being patriotic about the sovereignity of their country, no matter how well off the individual might be. If the US were invaded and taken over, yet the new regime helped us improve schools, curb inflation and reduce government corruption, wouldn't we still say things were better in the "old days"?

Absolutely not. SFN is a web-based science information forum, and as such has neither the right nor the capability of invading a sovereign nation. We find it difficult to collaborate on musicals and novels, much less a military offensive of this nature.

Justifiable in the sense that it makes it right to do so? Absolutely not. People use justifiability to avoid moral responsibility. Would I kill in self defense or to defend others from death? Absolutely, if there were no other way. But I would not try to sidestep the fact that I had taken the life of a fellow human. Legally I am absolved from prosecution if I kill someone who is trying to kill me. That doesn't mean they "deserved" to die. It doesn't mean I would lose less sleep because it was legally justifiable. Failing my moral responsibility to preserve the lives of my fellow humans isn't something I could easily write off, even if I felt it was the necessary thing to do.

Well, yeah, but you need something to dunk the cookies in....

dave likes Guinness. Buy him a case and he'll change your name to Elizabeth Windsor if you want.

Tull also had this to say about socializing and introspection: Brain-storming' date=' habit-forming, battle-warning weary winsome actor spewing spineless chilling lines-- The critics falling over to tell themselves he's boring And really not an awful lot of fun. Well who the hell can he be when he's never had V.D., And he doesn't even sit on toilet seats? Court-jesting, never-resting--he must be very cunning To assume an air of dignity And bless us all With his oratory prowess, His lame-brained antics and his jumping in the air. And every night his act's the same And so it must be all a game of chess he's playing-- But you're wrong, Steve. You see, it's only solitaire. [/i'] Sometimes the people who seem to have the most confidence are only acting.

Make the effort? I thought it was clear that my cryofreeze option was for when it was commercially feasible (i.e., cheap) and we could store them virtually free in a subzero climate. Do you have any idea what it costs to utilize the death penalty? MAJOR effort, minimally effective, morally reprehensible. Old Testament justice for the computer age. We're better than that.

Why? Unusual maybe, but suspended animation isn't cruel, just very restrictive. It could be argued that, for those who don't see life in prison as being such a bad thing, being frozen would be a better deterrent. And someone who is a block of ice isn't going to escape to hurt anyone, not without some multi-million dollar Hollywood plot and the capabilities for cryonic resuscitation.

I oppose the death penalty in all instances. It is not the deterrent people want it to be. It deters you and me, maybe, but chances are we wouldn't kill anyone even if it were legal. If it's not a deterrent, then it's vengeance, and that diminishes us as a society. Retribution assumes the penalty is justly deserved, and no human, even a murderer, deserves to die at the hands of another human. It may sound good to say it regarding some vicious killer, but getting what you deserve should never mean death. Civilized society should face its problems, not sweep them under the rug. I think when cryogenic freezing becomes commercially feasible, the death penalty should be abolished and everyone who gets life imprisonment should be frozen and stored in Antarctica. No maintenance costs, no killing, no inhumane treatment, and your case can be reviewed every hundred years or so.

Al Franken would favor "staying the course" and Rush Limbaugh would deny that the media is liberal. Americans would remain confused. What if all personal motorized transportation were banned in favor of mass transit?

How many of the other climate forcing criteria are as controllable as greenhouse gasses? I could be wrong but I think the overemphasis on greenhouse gasses may stem from the fact that regulation of fuel emissions would have a more cumulative effect than anything we could currently do to affect the Earth's radiative budget.

From a 100' drop you would just float on the balls?

If that's the case, there would be less "balls" to displace with #1 since they would be larger and leave more air between them. It would take LONGER to reach the bottom with #2. The question is not worded very well. You may not reach the bottom at all, but you would go DEEPER into the pool if it were filled with #1 (but the question stinks like #2).

I hate to keep being all, you know, practical and everything, because I know you really want to somehow dissolve this small mountain, but have you at least called a local quarry to see if they'd remove it for free? There really are people who pay a ton o' cash for landscaping rocks. It might be the easiest route before you start scarring it up too much with hammers and chemicals and explosives (oh my!).

I tend to equate shyness with low self-esteem, but I know that's not always the case. Most people I know who are shy don't trust themselves enough to say what they feel or talk to people they don't know with confidence. We all want approval and sometimes shyness is a buffer so we can gauge how well we come across. It's usually not the safe bet we think it is when meeting new people. Sometimes the friendliest, most interesting people seem boring and disinterested when acting shy.

It's got to be the same house, AL, and thanks. I knew he had to have it computerized, but the low FM transmitter answered my other questions. I couldn't imagine living near this guy if he ran this in a regular loop WITH the sound. It rocks, but not 50 times a night.

Doesn't this have to be the home of an electrical engineer? I don't know how old this video is but the guy has talent. http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv Has anyone done anything similar?