doG

Try sending a public news release to The Onion. They cover discoveries like this.

Actually it hasn't.... Letting in a plane load of supplies and granting one or two visas to help 1.5 million victims is not aid.

An age old political utility is to fly over oppressed regions dropping leaflets of propaganda. I suspect the same means would work to drop off relief supplies. Would the junta there shoot down such relief planes and risk a military response?

Yep

That's what I meant. Firestarter, how long of an 8" pipe, in miles, would it take to encompass 1600m^3? Since the hours cancel each other out in the division this length would be your answer.

Is this homework help? You need to calculate the length of 8" pipe that would equal 1^3 meter and divide 1600 by that number to find the number of meters per hour that air is traveling. Then you can convert that to miles.

You might want to cover the evolution of the deity for dyslexic theists too, i.e. doG

In the spirit of science, can you PROVE that?

Perhaps you didn't notice that the topic is about an atheists creed, not a creed of all atheists. Maybe the author of the creed should dismiss it as fantasy but there is no validity in claiming this is should be true for all atheists is there?

Much ado about nothing. I wish the mainstream media would quit trying to compete with the tabloids....

My morals are born of my humanism, not my atheism. My own belief in science, nature and rationality are born of my skepticism, not my atheism. IMO this creed attempts to make atheism more than it is when it is really nothing more than a description of people that are not theist. Atheism is not about the dogma or belief systems of atheists so there is no need for a creed.

There was a time when a scientist like Galileo could end up on house arrest or worse for theories that went against the majority's belief that "God did it". Now the tide is turning and fear of reprisal for being godless is not the variable it used to be.

As a side note, if you're in the U.S., Jacob's Ladders are a source of broadband RF radiation which can cause quite a bit of interference for radio and TV. If you run it too much the FCC could come knocking on your door.

That doesn't make her statements any more believable. Of course, I don't believe him either...

I still don't understand why anyone would believe anything she says...

It does seem that there will be a point where the price of food will rise high enough for it to compete as an increased cash crop for farmers, when it will cost as much to fill your stomach as it does your gas tank It really baffles me sometimes how much an allegedly intelligent species like homo sapiens can somehow prove how totally stupid it can be.

I know it was posted, it was in my subscribed threads. That's why I noticed something was up. I saw the thread pop up with a new reply in Today's Posts and not in my subscribed threads. I thought I might have dropped that subscription but found the post wasn't here anymore. Weird.

Either the database has dropped a reply from this thread or someone deleted the post I made shortly after this thread began. I'm not worried about the post itself but someone else might be if the db is dropping stuff...

Isn't part of the availability of food at the grocery store having somewhere to grow it? If each acre of farmland becomes more valuable producing ethanol stocks then why would anyone use it to grow food on? If all of the land gets converted to grow ethanol stock on what land will farmers grow food on and what will be the price of that food regardless of transportation costs?

IMO the thirst for biofuels will divert much needed farmland to energy production. In America alone, the bread basket of the world, you could convert every square inch of farmland to corn crops for ethanol and it wouldn't supply a third of America's demand for energy while destroying a significant part of the planets arable land suitable for food production. Mankind is on a course for an epic trainwreck and the continued effort to produce new ethanol plants is simply stoking the boiler.

I don't see any data or logic in any of your posts that seem to refute General Petraeus' opinion, only statements based on your own opinion. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion you shou;dn't expect us to accept it as sound evidence that General Petraeus is wrong in his assessment. I did notice your question in your second post, i.e.: Which do you think is more important, the intermediate goalposts (deadlines) or the end result? We've outed Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Saddam from Iraq. Do you think it is in our country's best interest to simply let Al-Qaeda take Iraq because they missed a deadline?

Ha. I'd agree that many criticisms of General Petraeus in this thread were made sincerely but I wouldn't label any of them as founded in sound data or logic that disprove the General's opinion.

Is that how you would characterize post 2 above? Criticism founded on data, logic and sincerity?

He is the one on the ground in charge of the operations there. It is his job to know what he's talking about. Who here thinks they have the time and experience in his position to second guess him here? I know I don't and I'd prefer to see the rest of the airchair-commander-wannabes show the world that they know what they're talking about or shut up!

If that were true programs written in C or C++ would disappear because they take much longer to develope that software written in a higher level language like BASIC. As a professional coder myself I NEVER use a wysiwyg!