In My Memory

Phi can leap tall buildings in a single bound, run faster than a speeding bullet, and has superstrength, but he only uses his powers for mayhem and EVIL!!!!!

Dak, [/pedant] Here is the indepth annotation to the constitutional limits of free speech. It is only constitutional to limit speech and expression so long as there is a clear and present danger (this has an interesting interpretation in some cases, but basically it should be understood as any expression that lends to criminal activity). As long as the limits of clear and present danger can be respected, all speech (and that includes neo-nazis) is protected. Zyncod, For what reason?

5614 goes by the name Jonathan.

YT2095, I can just see it now, many people will say flag burning isnt an edipidemic in America, that it is so rare that we dont need such an amendment. Then, when people start burning their flags to protest this amendment, we'll hear from Fox News "see, we told you we needed this amendment, look how many people burn their flags!".

Coquina, The fact is, they dont promise to find homes for animals. They arent an animal shelter, they arent an adoption facility, and they are rather open that they euthanize animals. See PETA's official reply, quoted from the PETA2 Boards: Zyncod, PETA opposes pet ownership - I disagree with PETA on this point. Pet ownership is consistent with animal welfare, because the animals certainly like free food, shelter, and companionship. And its consistent with animal rights, as adopting a pet is like adding another member to the family, there is nothing exploitative about that and certainly no rights have been violated. I've personally had an unusual experience with a PETA member, in which she corrected my use of the word "pet" mid-speech with "animal companion". Right now, I am caring for my sisters puppy, Mr. Piddles (short for Montague Von Piddler III esq.), and he seems very happy. Mokele, Not true. Although, it isnt publicized as often, many vegans oppose very much eating fish, crab, lobster, shellfish, and other sea animals. And I dont know many vegans would would willingly torment a snake or a lizard, and there are some very admirable efforts to rescue sea turtles whos homes have been destroyed by oil spills or pollution, and environmentalists especially care very much for coldblooded and invertebrate animals such as those in coral reef systems. Some vegans will even abstain from using products that destroy insect life, such as honey, various dyes, and certain makeups. For me, I dont believe that insects suffer nearly as much as mammals, however I still dont feel compelled to kill them (also, for environmental reasons, I buy my food from local organic providers who little to no pesticides). The reason why endotherms recieve so much attention is because thats what so many people eat and experiment on.

I feel so relieved for Mr. Schiavo.

BenSon, The theory is purely mathematical, so if the theory could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent, it would be falsified, and therefore proven wrong.

Demosthenes, Almost every single culture on the planet has condemned stealing and murdering, and its been condemned long before Christianity appeared in the first place. Also, nobody despises certain moral values just because those values are held by a certain religion. People despise certain moral values because those values are simply unpractical, have negative consequences, or are just plain silly. Religion gets mixed up with silly moral values because politicians, in an attempt to take control of the moral highground, use the authority of God to defend their actions. What you get is something like "I believe abortion is wrong, and God agrees with me", "I believe women shouldnt wear pants, and God agrees with me", "I believe Africans are the rightful property of white men, and God agrees with me". Do you know what happens when someone calls a politician on their silly moral values? The politician whines that he is being persecuted in an anti-Christian society. (There is a nice quote by Ghandi that goes something along the lines of "I like your Christ, but I dont like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike your Christ".)

BenSon made made a comment in another thread: I personally know nothing about String Theory or M-theory, except they are purely descriptive and mathematical theories. I'm not sure what to call these theories, are they scientific? are they philosophy? Any comments greatly appreciated

I know people who are high up on the chain of power on Wikipedia, and apparently there are constant edit wars on basically all the alternative medicine and religious topics. (I think it has something to do with a non-point-of-view policy, which discourages real skepticism and science.) But, I still like the Wikipedia - I've never added anything to it, however.

Is it possible that he meant that people tend to become more conservative as they grow older? See the light, so to speak. I'm at a loss - how could he mean that when he says no ideas have been changed?

Gib,

Demosthenes, *spits outs words placed in my mouth* *sweeps that pile of straw under carpet* If we dont know what? That the stem cells come from human embryos? We are fairly sure that they come from the surplus human embryos from in vitro, but essentially that doesnt mean anything - the suplus embryos would be disposed if nothing were done with them. Strictly as a matter of definition, the embryo is "alive" and "human" - meaning the cells will metabolize and the cells are genetically human. After that point, there isnt anything more to say. You have to ask "when are we ethically obligated to protect the lives of living organisms", the most reasonable answer is "when the living thing has an interest in continued existence", but the embryos dont have that interest (or any interest) at all. I think of opposing stem cell research as essentially no different than opposing organ or limb transplants (the organs and limbs are just as alive and just as genetically human). There really isnt anything special about the surplus embryos or surplus organs that gives any special moral appeal, so what objection is there to studying them? Lance, I agree, life does start at conception (it meets at the scientific definitions of "life" I've ever come across). However, "life starts at conception" doesnt really have any ethical implications at all. There isnt any good reason why Christians assume life is intrinsically valuable, why only human life can make a claim to intrinsic value when other lifeforms cannot, or even explain if it is unethical to destroy life in the first place. (Presumably, the explanation lies in God's divine commands, but if God's commands have no more justification than "because I will it", then those commands and anything derived from them are empty and unjustified.)

Demosthenes, No one denies that the embryos are biologically alive and human, however opposing stem cell research doesnt save them. Most stem cells come from surplus embryos produced from in vitro fertilization, there isnt any way to salvage them - what is strange is that people find this fact to be frightening, however it is really no more remarkable than the 4/5 of all fertilized ova that are lost before they ever implant, and no one mourns the loss of those embryos.

Budullewraagh, [insane liberal rant=on] Do you think Bush really cares about stem-cell research? Although I strongly believe he is going to veto this bill, I really dont know if he actually cares about stem-cell research at all (at least not in the way his pro-life supporters care). In the interests of his "Culture of Life", there really isnt any way he can defend a veto of this bill that (if it passes) will definitely improve the lives of thousands of people with nervous system disorders, and if it doesnt pass will contribute to saving 0 human lives and no increase in the quality of life for many others. I've heard others defend a veto on fiscal grounds, however if Mr. Bush bases his veto on the price of stem-cell research, then clearly Bush would contradict his Culture of Life values by putting money above human lives (although why he didnt adopt this attitude before calling for US$100s of billions to fight the Iraqi war is beyond me). I just dont see how he could veto this bill, enthusiastically support the death penalty, push forward the Iraq war despite civilian and American casualties, and of all things take virtually no action to combat the genocides occurring in Sudan and Rwanda - how does any reconcile all of these behaviors under a Culture of Life ethical scheme? Thats right, you just cant. Bush's actions seem like he is only Pro-Life when its in his political interests, which I believe is precisely the motivation for his veto. This means Bush keeps the vote of the evangelical lobby (politically desirable), and many people will suffer and die without justification (morally abhorrent). [/insane liberal rant=off]

Stupidest thing I'd ever done: I thought I knew how to water ski. I thought if I couldnt water ski, I wouldnt let myself be dragged 160ft through the water. After that, I thought I'd never find my suit.

Like this: ["Seht die Sterne, die da lehren wie man soll den Meister ehren. Jeder folgt nach Newtons Plan Ewig schweigend seiner Bahn."] The above sample is Albert Einstein, source here.

Demosthenes, I dont remember saying quite all of that. *sweeps burned straw away*

I've just finished watching the 20/20 special, here is my take on it: Perfectly enlightening as a sermon, truly awful as a scholarly resource. I was disappointed, but unsurprised. It isnt worth the time to examine what claims were made or what words were said, the special was simple preaching. I dont think they would have run the show at all if they actually considered consulting actual historians - it isnt good for ratings to have a bunch of scholars arguing that Jesus Christ probably never existed, the resurrection story is spurious and contradictory, and that the Gospels are no more remarkable than the pagan mythologies which gave rise to the mytholgies in the first place. Their have been a series of recent theological panderings that have aired, such as PBS's "The Question of God", the Discovery Channel's "Jesus of Nazareth", and next week's Good Morning America will air a show titled "In Search of the Real DaVinci Code". The 20/20 special is probably the worst of all the special reports I've ever seen, and the worst of all the specials that have focused on Christianity.

Demosthenes, The multilateralist in me is banging against the wall Almost all of the international institutions, such as the United Nations, originated in the US, because the institutions do much much more to amplify US influence and power abroad than US unilateralism could ever accomplish. Unilateralism is chaotic and unstable. And the other alternative, US isolationism, is absurd - two world wars, dependence on international trade, and militaristic initiatives on foreign soil put the US squarely in the center of the "world stage" and as a functioning cog of the international machine. The UN is just part of the evolution of foreign policy, its meant to enhance America's role as a global stabilizer, not impede it.

Benson, Rajama, VikingF, Dave, I ran the same query this morning without any changes, and it seemed to work fine. It must have been a problem with my Access. But thanks anyway All the best, In My Memory

I have an MSAccess table that looks like this: Table: [i]MyThings[/i] [b]ID[/b] [b]Item[/b] [b]TotalVotes[/b] [b]Voters[/b] 1 Shoes 40 16 2 Coffee 4 2 3 Cat 20 5 4 Skirt 10 10 [i]etc.[/i] I have intended the last two fields as a rating system that works like this: * Users select an item, and rate it between 1 and 5 * The users rating is added to the TotalVotes field, and the Voters field is incremented by 1. * Officially, the rating of an item is equal TotalVotes / Voters. According to my current database, Shoes have a rating of 2.5 (40 accumulated votes / 16 voters), Coffee has a rating of 2, Cats have a of 4, and Skirts are wildly unpopular with a rating of 1. I am trying to create a database search to show me only items with a rating of 2.5 or higher, however the following SQL does not work: SELECT * FROM MyThings WHERE TotalVotes / Voters > 2.5 I have limited experience with SQL, so please do not mind my incredibly newbie question that probably has a very obvious answer . All assistance is appreciated in advance

Clearly, they've been reading Jack Chick

J_p, No one in this thread said women were biologically less able to negotiate a salary, or even suggested it. Re-read the portion I quoted from the opening post and my response to it, because I think you've missed some important context.