doG

Your definitions and understanding of these terms is flawed. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. It's about knowledge, not theism. Agnosticism is NOT a point on the axis of theism for fence sitters that don't know if they believe in deities or not. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Basically theists have an affirmative belief that at least one deity exists. Anyone that lacks that belief is atheist or not-theist. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there are no deities or that they are not possible. Anyone that believes that man can never know the absolute truth is agnostic regardless of their belief, or lack thereof, in deities. Anyone that lacks an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist is atheist. I fit both of these conditions so I am an example of an agnostic atheist. Someone which claims to 'know' there are no deities is gnostic atheist, sometimes referred to as a strong atheist. Anyone that claims to 'know' there is a god is a gnostic theist. Those that believe in one or more gods but also believe man could never absolutely know for sure are agnostic theists.

Yes and no. It doesn't matter a whole lot how much warming is natural and how much is from anthropogenic causes because warming will occur naturally and we do need to be prepared for it. OTOH, that warming which is caused by anthropogenic causes is largely caused by pollution and warming or not, that is bad for the environment we depend on. It's time for man to quit pissing in his own bath water and clean up his act.

You need a clue on how to perform your own calculation on 2 numbers that you asked for when you specifically pointed out that you didn't need any explanation? Here, I'll convert them to another base to see if they fit your equations any better. 177 & 17,777 BTW, these 2 numbers don't have any of those pesky 'units' things for you to worry about.

Huh? Is there something wrong with those numbers? Do you need them in another base? They are 2 numbers of something I know and that is what you asked for.

FWIW, this study claims around 60% of women have faked an orgasm. The sample size is 366 women out of the approximately 3 billion on the planet so it is still a statistically disproportionate sample of the whole. It does bring out a more significant detail though, that these women only needed to have faked one orgasm to be included in the 60%. Now if a woman with 100 or more trists in her history has faked one orgasm in the lot then what percentage of the whole does she really represent? Me thinks this fork in the discussion is near pointless!

I can't say that I particularly agree with that. Thus far in my life I've had way more sex for fun and recreation than procreation. I did manage to have 2 kids but even they were unintended. I can't say that I ever had sex even once with the intent of having children.

7F 1FFF

I don't care what atheism is to you. The term atheist simply means not-theist. Theists have an affirmative belief in deities. Anyone that lacks such a belief is not-theist, i.e. atheist. Atheism does not mean one has an affirmative belief that deities do not or cannot exist. Some atheists do indeed have such a belief but only a lack of belief is necessary to be non-theist. Additionally, atheism is not a scientific position on the origins of matter, energy or anything else. It has nothing to do with physics or science. Perhaps you should make an effort to become a little more informed lest you tear down your credibility any further!

So, you're asking a question, a question that has no bearing. What does it matter if we know or don't know where matter came from? That questions exist that we may not have answers for does not mean that we can just make answers up. All we can do is keep looking for the answers. That is what science is about, searching for the facts that answer our questions. Only quitters make up answers

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm just highlighting the types of monumental obstacles that will have to be overcome for it to work because I'm a realist. I do think some common ground will be required of all joining nations to even propagate the meme for discussion among their people or it won't get ratified by nations that feel they would be giving up more rights than they would gain. I do think a partial global government is more realistic considering how the U.S. started with a few states with others joining the union later. I do also think there's a real possibility some nations would never join without having everything their way.

Didn't Dr. Barack Hussein Obama get one?

The point is that we can't currently get global agreement on that one issue with equal protection for all nations. If the global community can't agree on that one issue it should be obvious that the multitude of other issues that would need to be agreed upon by all would just compound the problem. The U.S. would likely be insistent that an international Constitution would bar cruel and unusual punishment, grant equal rights to women, grant equal protection to all world citizens, etc. It seems to me an unachievable goal in our lifetime.

Considering the discussion leading up to this... Again, as a small stepping stone, it should be relatively easy to get everyone to sign a global anti-pollution treaty like Kyoto without any exemptions for any countries? That you see this question as economic does not render it impertinent.

Even if that were the case any favoritism to one state over another at the federal level is unconstitutional under the current U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause. Why then would it be OK to do that at a global level?

In addition to being atheist I am also a humanist. I treat others as I do because it is the right thing to do, not because I might get to go to some paradise when I die or to avoid the threat of hell. I need no fairy tales to make me a good person.

I tend to disagree with that point of view since any other laws and/or regulations would themselves need to be 'Constitutional'. Equal protection, for instance, is one aspect of our own Constitution that would need to ab applied equally to all nations and the citizens of those nations. Laws that give economic advantage to one nation as opposed to another would thus be unconstitutional.

In the U.S. THE Constitution is the root of all law. Are you using 'constitution' with some other definition in the context of this thread? I thought the idea of a Global Constitutional Convention was aimed at creating a global body of law for all.

So, as a small stepping stone, it should be relatively easy to get everyone to sign a global anti-pollution treaty like Kyoto without any exemptions for any countries?

It looks like the OP was describing a system with 7 symbols not including zero....

1. I'll begin by saying I haven't programmed in all languages so I can't answer this definitively. I have programmed in many languages and I have not encountered an interpreted or compiled language that doesn't allow comments in the source code. I have programmed in both assembly code and directly in machine code and using comments in those instances would defeat the space saving, speed achievement reasons for using those methods of programming. FWIW, early on in BASIC it was a handy trick to put a remark or comment in the BASIC code to reserve space that was then filled with directly executable machine code. BASIC ran very slowly and it could take close to a minute to paint the screen with it but you could bury machine code inside BASIC comments that could paint the screen so fast it appeared instantaneous. I used this in some early experiments with subliminal messages back in the 1980s. 2. No 3. Yes 4. No

That would be nice but.... Are you suggesting a Global Constitution is possible that the rest of the world agrees to and is also one that Iran and North Korea would agree to? The legislature of South Carolina ratified the U.S. Constitution on it's own accord, without coercion, with a message of some suggested changes. I'm not convinced a Global Constitution that Israel agrees with is one that Iran would agree to ratify itself.

I didn't take the question as one about future birthdates but simply as one about future dates on the planets converted to future Earth dates. I assumed it had something to do with the whole astrology mythology thing.

Look at the javascript code on the page you linked to. With a little modification it would work the same for future dates. You might try starting with using the code as is and adjusting the age variable to use the absolute value of the difference between today and a future date.

If you view the source code of that page you will see it is driven by a simple piece of javascript. At the top of the script you will see that it says, birthdate = (new Date(birthyear, birthmonth, birthday)).getTime(); // age is your age in days age = (today - birthdate) / (1000 * 3600 * 24); if (age > 0.0) {...planet conversion routines The 'age' variable is today - the birth date you entered divided by (1000 * 3600 * 24). Then if that calculated age in days is greater than 0.0 is passes the age variable to each of the functions that calculate your age in the years of the various planets. The script is not designed to work with dates in the future.

No, I am claiming we are circumventing the representative system by making it behave like a democracy. The passing of state laws to circumvent the intended design of the Electoral College is a good example.