blike

Not to change the subject or anything, but http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81303,00.html WASHINGTON — Iraqi troops south of Baghdad are armed with chemical weapons, Fox News has learned.

RESOLUTION 688 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991 The Security Council, Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security, Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations, Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region, Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442), Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447), Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area, Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366), 1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; 2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected; 3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities; 5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population; 6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts; 7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends; 8. Decides to remain seized of the matter

its ok to be wrong once in awhile faf Thats a well-known Iraqi defector on the phone ;p Indian accents aren't so hard

Its unsanctioned, but not illegal. I believe the security council agreed it was not in violation.

The US and UK created the no fly zones. "But the "no-fly" zone was never specifically mandated by the UN Security Council, and was rejected from the outset by Iraq as a violation of its sovereignty. Iraq's objections were backed by Russia and China, and in 1996 France withdrew its participation. " http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html "The two no-fly zones over Iraq were imposed by the US, Britain and France after the Gulf War, in what was described as a humanitarian effort to protect Shi'a Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north. However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

I see this quickly devolving into flaming. he provided links, faf, your turn to counter with links ;p

This is great stuff.. edit: hrm, i'll fix it shortly Edit #2: Let's trying again http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

I'll admit, one man's interview is hardly conclusive evidence, but it is something to think about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html ::adds fuel to the flames::

http://www.rini.org/countdown.php

Here's another excerpt. The article is in story form, which makes it kind of confusing sometimes. Lukasiewicz grasped my arm. "Oh, but it does. It helps to resolve paradoxes. For instance, you claim to be a complete liar. Let's think about your statement 'I am lying.' Or, more simply,this statement is false.' In classical logic, it is a paradox, yes? If it is true, then it is false; if it is false, then it is true. To put it another way, you have a statement P with truth value p, which is 0 or 1, and P says the truth value of this sentence is 1 - p." Sorry, I didn't quite get that." "Ah. If P is true, then its negation, not-P, is false, and its truth value is 0. And conversely. Now, 1 - 0 = 1 and 1 - 1 = 0, so if the truth value of P is p, then the truth value of not-P is 1 - p." Oh. I see." Right. Now the problem is that 'this statement' is P, so P is telling us that the truth value of P is 1 - p. That's where the paradox comes from. If p = 0, then P tells us that p = 1 - 0 = 1. And if p = 1, then P tells us that p = 1 - 1 = 0. Neither choice is consistent." I gave him a condescending smile. "Luke, all you've done is reformulate in complicated algebraic language what was obvious all along." He smirked. " Maybe. But in fuzzy logic, there is a consistent solution to the equation p = 1 - p, namely, p = 0.5. So your claim to be a permanent liar is a half-truth, and everything works out fine. Your own statement leads inevitably to fuzzy logic."

i know nothing about building your own amp, but you can't go wrong with a marshall stack

Since it is all-encompassing, all-agreed upon, I doubt we shall see any further peer-reviewed articles on any part of evolution, because we already know it all!

In classical logic,a statement has a truth value of either 1 for true or 0 for false. The statement "the sun is shining" has a truth value of 0 if it is cloudy. In general, statement P has a truth value p equal to 1 or 0. In fuzzy logic, a statement can have a truth value of between 1 and 0. If a cloud obscures a quarter of the sun, then statement P has a value of 0.25. In fuzzy logic, like the classical theory, the truth value of a statement will change when applying the operators NOT, AND, OR, IMPLIES and IF AND ONLY IF. NOT-P has a truth value of 1-p. EXAMPLE: If the sun is shining with a truth value of 0.25, then the sun is NOT shining with a truth value of 0.75. P AND Q has a truth value equal to the lesser of p and q where q is the truth value of statement Q. EXAMPLE: The sun is shining with a truth value of 0.25, AND Jane is getting tan with a truth value of 0.10. The value of the example is 0.10. P OR Q has a truth value equal to 1 the greater of p and q. EXAMPLE: The sun is shining with a truth value of 0.25, OR Jane is getting tan with a truth value of 0.10. The value of the example is 0.25. P IMPLIES Q has a truth value equal to the lesser of 1 and 1 - p + q. EXAMPLE: If the sun is shining with a truth value of 0.25, then Jane is getting tan with a truth value of 0.10. The value of the example is 0.85. P IF AND ONLY IF Q has a truth value equal to 1 - |p - q|, that is, one minus the absolute value of p minus q. EXAMPLE: The sun is shining with a truth value of 0.25 IF AND ONLY IF Jane is getting tan with a truth value of 0.10. The value of the example is 0.85. From scientific american. Feb., 1993

QM or time travel? I'll give some input tomorrow morning, its bed time for me

WHAT?! You're in 7th grade and you're talking about schwartzchild radiation?! Great stuff! Anyhow, by "cool nerd" faf means picking an advanced subject and describing it way beyond the comprehension of your targeted audience I disagree though, do time travel. It'll at least hold their attention. You could explain the basic principles of relativity and go from there.

It depends on who you're writing to. If its highschool students, then the slides need to be on a more basic level, and spend more time explaining background information. If you're writing to PhD physicists, you can jump right into the formulas

No, this thread isn't about Anna Nichole Smith, sorry From what I understand, fossils older than about 60,000 years have to be dated using methods other than radiocarbon dating. A method they commonly used for dating dinosaurs is measuring the age of the surrounding rocks and the layer in which the fossil is contained. This seems feasable assuming the fossil is in a specific layer than can be measured. But what about fossils of early bipedal apes that have been found? Some of these are found in valleys [can't remember the name of the real famous one] where the fossil is just under the surface. Dating the surrounding rocks seems a bit of a longshot. What happens if I were to slip down the slope and die alone. In 100,000 years someone could come by and date my fossilized bones and mistake them for 10-million year old remains. How is this screened for?

And I would like to present this paper on randomness and coincidences

Thats what I always thought, but I was looking into some stuff about fuzzy logic. "the sentence below is false the sentence above is true" heres another "All John's are liars". [i am John] None of these sentences can be true or false. They have values between true and false. thats why i wanted to exclude subjective statements

A lot of my fish died that way, bloated belly up

How do I solve ©? Also, can someone post the derivative, just to check my answer?

yea yea, but given the simplistic manner in which the questions were stated, I didn't think it warrented a very detailed explanation of everything.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but he's on his way

Quite possible! you're traveling through time right now. There have been methods proposed to travel into the past, but there is no way we could experimentally demonstrate it. Travel to the future, on the other hand, is feasable. The faster you are moving, the more time dialates. In other words, time appears to be going faster for things that are not moving as fast as you. If you were traveling near the speed of light past earth in a spaceship, and as you flew by you looked at a clock on earth, you would see the clock's hands spinning very fast. People on earth would be scurrying around like ants. Your clock inside your spaceship would be ticking normally though. In essence, you would be travling to the future. I doubt it. Experimental data shows he was correct. Not sure I understand the question. Yep, nothing with mass.