SH3RL0CK

Think of where the energy losses will be:

 

1) air resistance: make the car as aerodynamic as possible.

 

2) track resistance: think about lubricating the track/wire. Maybe just use one wire instead of two.

While it is true that old earth creationists don't have much in the way of testable predictions,

 

Actually, I don't beleive this statement to be true. It seems to me that OEC theories would certainly predict the current fossil record and all the geological and cosmological evidence that exists today.

 

I guess maybe its really just a matter of adjusting ones beliefs in accordance with the facts (i.e. becoming a OEC believer instead of a YEC believer).

No one is talking about achieving 100% guaranteed safety - but where we can take small actions that have a big impact on safety. Washing your hands doesn't not protect you 100% from germs, but it sure helps.

 

The real issue is reducing cost to human life due to unintentional causes, as well as illegal causes... without putting undue constraints on law abiding legal gun owners.

 

Many people fight to put undue strain on gun owners because they believe gun ownership is archaic and socially irresponsible, while some gun owners fight to push recklessly loose gun laws because they feel their own justifications.

 

So the real question then is what constraints are "undue" and which are "reasonable" and I suspect that will come from a middle ground approach, considering how far apart the extremes can be.

 

Personally I sympathize with the efforts of those trying to reduce illegal gun use but I find the potential "dragnet" abuses that may come with repealing the Tiahrt Amendment very disconcerting. Secondarily to that, the disappearing/reappearing act of that text on Obama's site is a disappointment.

 

It seems we are in agreement with the basic facts here.

Well, probably not a big deal. I'll take Obama at his word and assume good faith on this; clearly more transparency is a good thing.

 

I'm more worried about it being used to punish "whisleblowers" and those who stopped unethical actions without resorting to whistleblowing (at lower levels) than it being used to punish political enemies. After all the rhetoric is over, politicians generally get along very well with themselves.

Former WH employees cannot lobby the white house? Seems a bit draconian to me considering that:

 

1) most of these would be former GW Bush workers, as most of the Clinton workers were probably rehired under Obama. These people will need to do something to earn a living.

 

2) How is he defining "lobbying?"

 

Would any conversations with the officers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler regarding spending the bailout money be considered "lobbying" even if the WH initiated these discussions? Hello new GM employee, I need your bank account numbers so we can send you the check electronically and so that you don't go bankrupt...wait a minute, can I get someone else on the line?

 

Suppose someone from the Bush Administration becomes the governor from a state, would they be barred from the WH? How about while discussing the next Katrina disaster that may happen under Obama's watch? From any governors meetings with the President?

 

I can see this a very effective way to "punish" people who had the nerve to work for G.W. Bush. If this is the case, what corporation or political think tank would ever hire anyone from the WH regardless of their qualifications?

 

Maybe I'm being cynical...I doubt there would be that much change in staff between terms. And I seriously doubt that Obama would take it to the extremes I have stated above, but I see potential for abuses.

 

Edit: Does anywhere state how long "former" employees couldn't lobby the WH? Is it one year or for forever? Certainly a short period of time (1 year) might be considered appropriate.

I think it is important to distinguish amongst the various types of creationists.

 

1) Those who beleive the earth is 6,000 years old.

2) Those who beleive the earth is about 5 billion years old.

 

Obviously these will produce different prediction, especially with regards to fossil records.

 

Some creationists have no problem with evolution, b.t.w. To them it the creation story answers "Why" and Evolution answers "How" things are as they are.

 

Also, I'd like to add that we should be careful not to confuse the stories.

 

the story of Noah's ark is different than creation,

the creation of the universe (Big Bang) can be considered different than the creation of life (Evolution)

The best child proof mechanism is the immediate death of the gun owner if a child gets access to the gun and someone is hurt.

 

Thats kinda cold.

 

I am of the opinion that teaching children about guns is the best approach. The NRA has programs in place to do this, maybe the US government should financially support the NRA in much the same way as Planned Parenthood gets funding to teach about safe sex?

 

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/index.asp

 

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppnne/donor-faqs-17879.htm

 

Q. Does Planned Parenthood receive federal money? State funding? Support from foundations and corporations?

 

A. PPNNE does receive state and federal funding to support our medical services and education programs.

 

All most kids today know about guns is what they learn playing video games (where, b.t.w. it is impossible to really get hurt or really hurt someone). This does not provide them with the proper respect for guns nor with the understanding that reals guns are not toys and should NOT be played with.

 

You can install all the child-proofing you want on your guns, even eliminate them completely from your house. You could in theory even make guns completely illegal. But that does not make your child at all safe when they find an imported, stolen, loaded gun in the gutter that some drug dealer dropped the night before.

Couldn't an 8 state logic system be modeled effectively by a 2 state logic system since 8 is divisible by 2? See for example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octal#In_computers

 

Octal is sometimes used in computing instead of hexadecimal, perhaps most often in modern times in conjunction with file permissions under Unix systems (see chmod). It has the advantage of not requiring any extra symbols as digits (the hexadecimal system is base-16 and therefore needs six additional symbols beyond 0–9). It is also used for digital displays.

 

At the time when octal originally became widely used in computing, systems such as the IBM mainframes employed 24-bit (or 36-bit) words. Octal was an ideal abbreviation of binary for these machines because eight (or twelve) digits could concisely display an entire machine word (each octal digit covering three binary digits). It also cut costs by allowing Nixie tubes, seven-segment displays, and calculators to be used for the operator consoles; where binary displays were too complex to use, decimal displays needed complex hardware to convert radixes, and hexadecimal displays needed to display letters.

 

All modern computing platforms, however, use 16-, 32-, or 64-bit words, with eight bits making up a byte. On such systems three octal digits would be required, with the most significant octal digit inelegantly representing only two binary digits (and in a series the same octal digit would represent one binary digit from the next byte). Hence hexadecimal is more commonly used in programming languages today, since a hexadecimal digit covers four binary digits and all modern computing platforms have machine words that are evenly divisible by four. Some platforms with a power-of-two word size still have instruction subwords that are more easily understood if displayed in octal; this includes the PDP-11. The modern-day ubiquitous x86 architecture belongs to this category as well, but octal is almost never used on this platform.

 

Also, there were and are analog computers

 

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

 

which have an infinite number of states (as an example of a non-binary computer). I would suggest you read these wiki articles as a starting point to answer your questions in more detail.

Well, you can either accept the findings of modern scientific investigation or you can reject it.

 

And when findings conflict? Then you reject what is most unlikely, which is the claims of your sources. Seriously, one night at almost any bar will provide ample evidence to the contrary.

 

After all, wasn't Galileo viciously mocked by his contemporaries for debunking the concept of a geocentric universe?

I don't understand this comment? All I am saying is that this "research" is clearly wrong.

The fact of the matter is that all current empirical research suggests that (1.) the MAJORITY of women find altruistic (i.e. sweet, kind) men to be both sexually unattractive and socially undesirable,

I strongly disagree with your statement of "all". My time at the local pubs produces very different findings. I find the studies you referenced disasterously flawed, and I could easily get better scientific studies, with different conclusions. Except I don't beleive you are serious. If you were serious you would have found these other studies yourself.

that (2.) violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths establish short-term/long-term committed relationships and attract large numbers of female sex partners at a rate that is significantly higher than men who are less pathological (according to the standard diagnostic tool by which psychopathy is measured, the PCL-R, sexual promiscuity and the ability to establish multiple committed relationships with numerous heterosexual females is a core feature of the psychopathic personality), and

these people are also far less selective in their search (i.e. any female will work) and cast a far wider net. For example, I would never hire a prostitute (a short term relationship) but a convicted felon might do so quite frequently.

 

The implication is of course that promiscuity is a measure of sucess. Why do you blindly accept the notion that the number of partners is any measure of "sucess"?

 

that (3.) a SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE of women, for both purely psychological and evolutionary biological reasons, find men who possess such traits as aggression, low niceness/agreeableness, hypermasculinity, sensation-seeking, low empathy, narcissistic etc, to be very sexually attractive.

I have a problem with your inconsistent definintions here. What is "hyper masculinity"? How do you measure it?

 

What is "substantial" percentage? Is it 99% or 1%? A substantial number of women prefer other women over any men (i.e. are lesbians) for that matter.

 

Even if a woman finds someone sexual attractive, this does not mean they will immediately jump into bed with that man. Nor does it mean the man will immediately jump into bed with the woman either.

 

Seriously, this statement is useless without defining the terms.

 

These are the most recent findings of modern empirical research on the matter and, unless we can provide contradictory evidence,

Then please do yourself a favor and go get some contradictory evidence.

we must eventually learn to accept and come to grips with it.

 

Really? Not if this is untrue. And even if, (even if! Ha!) there was any truth at all to this, we could chose instead to change society. For example, by providing better role-models (father figures) to young girls, among thousands of ways peoples beliefs and attitudes are shaped (its not all genetics and biology).

 

I really believe you are just trolling here (I certainly hope you don't actually believe these rediculous things, or I would pity you). But since I am finding this stupid arguement funny, and have a little bit of time, I am willing to play along today. Of course, when I get busy, I won't waste my time to reply to this thread.

Who said anything was wrong with the empirical sociological/psychological research on female mate preference? Certainly, not I. The recent findings suggest that a substantial percentage of women are sexually attracted to violent, aggressive, and even dangerous men. However, the MAJORITY of women would be largely attracted to male socio-economic status and earning capacity.

 

Wasn't the title of the thread (before the merger) something along the lines of "Why does this research indicate something totally preposterous?"

 

I can not imagine why these so called "researchers" can come to such easily disproved conclusions. I thought from your title that you maybe had a idea as to what they were doing wrong? I guess I misunderstood your point for this thread, because the only useful thing to do with such obviously flawed studies is to try to determine what went wrong with the researcher,publishers, etc. That, or make fun of them.

So... I am unclear on your points Abdul-Aziz. Please tell me what you think is wrong with this modern research?

Lofty and abstract language and ideals aside for a moment, there is a VERY real chance that the new AG will bring up charges, and the likelihood of Obama standing in their way is slim. He won't be pushing for proscecutions himself, but he won't likely try to block them, either.

 

I think it more likely that Obama would make it very clear to the AG not to do anything. While the desire for payback is great, it would also greatly complicate anything else he might want to do. Instead of Obama being able to get media attention on some peice of legislation he wants so that he can get sufficient congressional support, the media might instead be focused on some hearing, etc.

 

Witch hunts (even if actual witches are found as I'm sure they are out there in the GW Bush admin.) won't help him because he is already the President.

I still don't see how complaining about government spending is a partisan issue, every administration in modern times has increased deficit spending from the previous one regardless of political party.

 

I'm guessing the inaugeration costs will be a very small part of the deficit for this year. But I can see it being considered unnecessary.

 

I agree it is not a partisan issue. And its also a different set of concerns when the inaugeration is funded by private interests as opposed to government entities paying. But I fully expect that someone will try to make it so, if they haven't already.

I'm not saying people complaining about cost are wrong to do so. But to keep partisan bickering out of the discussion, some historical perspective is a good thing. If I recall correctly, didn't people complain about the excessive pending Reagan did during his inaugeration? I thought it was much, much more than Carter (or Ford for that matter) spent (or maybe I am wrong on this point).

LOL, I wasn't expecting that!

Radishes make you constipated you know. (sets up joke for later:cool:)

 

 

 

Well, they say I am full of it (vegetables that is).

 

Looking forward to the punchline...

Odd, I thought of radishes, not carrots. And I even have carrots as part of my lunch.

 

Does anyone know what the legal definitions of a 'Power' and 'the Powers who are parties' actually are and how these definitions might or might not be applicable to a gang of thugs waging Jihad?

In other words is a terrorist organization actually a "Power"?

 

Similarly, did the US government ever formally classify the KKK as a "Power"? ......or the Black Panthers?....or the Weathermen?

I seriously doubt it, but admit that I really don't know for sure.

 

why would they? After all these organizations were not international in scope or activity, AFAIK. IMO, this is a significant difference. Furthermore, the US has not had to go to such extremes (i.e. invade Afghanistan) to combat these organizations.

So, if they did not classify them as a 'Power', it seems like some Judicial branch of the US (ie, Supreme Court) or a World Court would rule against Al Queda being classified as such.

In other words then there should be no legal precedent to legally permit this activity to occur.

 

I disagree with your assumption here. I can easily see a judge or court ruling AQ a "power" at least in the context of this clause of the Geneva convention.

 

 

I realize that this is the loophole that this mess is all about.

But I still don't believe that the portion of the Geneva Conv above was intended to apply to anything other than a "country".

 

Also, this is just one small part of the Geneva Conv and, as quoted in my previous post, we also have US Laws plus The UN Convention Against Torture, which we are a party to also, and bound by.

 

The way I read it, this part of the Geneva convention was indeed intended to apply to others than just a country. And since the US laws seem to use the Geneva convention as the basis, then I can see a strong arguement where the laws are obeyed in such that, by the Geneva convention article 3, the US is not obligated to comply against AQ until such time as AQ is compliant with the Geneva convention.

 

I agree there is a lot of information to go through, and lots of different ways to look at this and I am not a lawyer. Furthermore, I don't have a lot of time right now to research this, maybe I can do so this weekend (but I doubt it right now).

For DrDNA: But the section I quoted (from Wikipedia , I will try to look into this further when/if I get more time...or maybe you could save me some time if you have a good reference covering this) seems to indicate the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to AQ because AQ will deliberately and routinely break the convention. Therefore, the safeguards in the convention, by its own clauses are no longer guaranteed to those AQ members.

 

Now I understand there are those at Gitmo who claim to not be AQ, but merely innocent bystanders caught up in the violence (and it might be hard to prove otherwise). These people would therefore must be afforded the Geneva convention guarantees (which keep in mind are different, worse actually according to Wiki, than those for POWs). But there are also those who freely admit being AQ and who freely admit things which clearly break the convention and freely say they would eagerly do it again if given the opportunity.

 

Therefore there seems to me, a strong case can be made that no laws, or conventions, were broken.

 

Again, I am NOT saying torture is acceptable from any ethical or moral or even logical perspective.

Perhaps we need to get you back on topic here. A foreign fighter captured in battle on foreign soil fighting against our troops, the subject of this thread, IS NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you want to be mad then be mad about any possible violations of the Geneva Convention since it covers POWs and the Constitution does not.

 

An additional point/question: I had thought the Geneva convention covered only wars between the signers; or when a non signer is compling with the convention. In other words, since Al Queda isn't a signer of the convention nor, b.t.w. do they follow it, people fighting AQ aren't required to abide by it either.

 

see:

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

 

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't abide by it regarding the AQ POWs, but I'm suggesting that maybe we aren't obligated to do so. If this is true, then the question on the validity of the use of torture in this case is not a legal arguement, but rather a moral and ethical arguement.

Hmmm...how about setting up a wireless router in your apartment. Of course, then you would probably need to pay, but it would probably be cheaper than some other options I can think of. How much are you willing to spend?

it is said that all matter and radiation was confined to a single point at that instant

 

this would imply a black-hole as the point

 

since nothing else could confine matter and more importantly radiation to a single point other than a BH

 

How do you know there is no other singularity possible than a black hole? You assume it was a black hole because it is the closest thing we know to what would have been the big bang precursor. But this does not mean the precursor could have been some other type singularity. Given that a black hole evaporates via Hawking radiation, I submit a black hole is quite different than any BB precursor would have been.

I do, however, know that if fighting stops, rockets will continue, and that's not an option either. I further know that most of the people lobbing the rockets are not the ones in control, and it's the ones in control who we need to focus on.

 

I question your statement that the people lobbing the rockets are not the ones in control. Either the people "in control" are actually in control and have the ability to stop the rockets (whether or not they choose to do so), or they are NOT in control.

 

Regardless, as the rockets have not stopped (even during the "ceasefire"), Israel seems to have no option but to fight until those who really are in control stops the rockets, or to put up with random, discriminate rocket attacks.

IMO that's evidence that the free market can provide alt. energies efficiently w/o government subsidies... which is how we end up with inefficient corn-based ethanol production, for example.

.

 

A minor point, and maybe this should be in another thread (actually there are other threads already), but I don't agree that corn-based ethanol production is inefficient. Considering that the farmer will grow the corn anyway and that after the production of the ethanol, the distiller's grain retains 90% dietary equivalent; it seems to me that this produces the ethanol very efficiently.

 

While there are studies (usually quite old) stating this is an inefficient process, the majority of the studies I have found indicate this is efficient with a postive energy balance and the added benefit of having the food as well.

With regards to any Partisanship concerns, I think it is worth noting that the Kyoto treaty was rejected 97-0 by the US senate when originally submitted. (Hint: both parties have the same basic stand despite their talking points).

 

I agree with what I think is Obama's idea: the best chance of becoming weaned off fossil fuels would be the development of an economical and environmentally friendly alternative. This appears it could be happening with wind power and also with biofuels (nearly 10% of the gasoline in the US is corn-produced ethanol).