doG

Are you saying that these people are not trying to claim their 72 virgins? That there is no religious motivation at all? If things are as you say the why do we not see suicide bombers from other social groups?

How does this benefit of purpose relate to one's morals? The study concluded that that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. For me this raises a question of the differences in moral beliefs between the religious and irreligious. In this review of the posted study it is noted: That highlights another unconsidered aspect, religiously motivated suicide. This group believes that suicide will take them to the promised land. I think this particular group would benefit from becoming irreligious.

I really don't have any trouble with the search function myself. I usually use the advanced search interface and quotes when needed. It would be helpful if vB produced a helpfile that described what operators are allowed like booleans or regex.

Here's a clinical study from the The American Journal of Psychiatry regarding religious affiliation and suicide attempts. I find the results interesting:

Actually it is the President that must sign Congress' bill for them to become law. There is the exception that a majority in Congress can override a Presidential veto in which case Congress can pass a law not signed by the President. For the sake of trivia this looks like a good place to point out that Congress can actually pass laws that even the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction of: To my knowledge there are no such laws on the books...........yet!

If things like the atomikpsycho can get in just who are you keeping out?

Only because the President is constitutionally conveyed this power. Congress has the power to change this via Constitutional amendment. Also, the President is the Commander In Chief but is not authorized to declare war, an act reserved to the power of Congress.

The President is not a Representative though, he is the Executor. There is no hierarchical relationship. An organizational chart or hierarchical chart would not list the President at the top with the Representatives of the people and/or the states listed below him/her. The President's power is limited to that which is authorized by Congress itself since it is Congress that maintains our Constitution and it is the Constitution that enumerates the powers of the three branches. In the end it is the people at the top of the chart with the President, Congress and the Judicial branches listed below with equal standing.

Looks good....

FWIW, MIT's OpenCourseWare has quite a bit of physics material online...

BTW Admins, the gay epileptic atomicpsycho does have its instant email notification turned on, right? We wouldn't want it to accuse us of talking behind its back.

Or if it is a gay pedophile....

I don't understand it either. Some of them will actually walk away or cover their ears to avoid proof that contradicts their own belief. They act like proof is some conspired fabrication.

Maybe it just feels more welcome over here

I'm sure they wouldn't mind doing that if it was a conversation piece there but atomikpsycho only posted 3 posts there and hasn't been back since July...

Or you could use the one from last year. There's still a copy of it in this thread...

It still doesn't change the law, not in its meaning or intent. Now matter how easy it becomes to commit the crime it is still a crime until the law is changed. Apparently Congress has noticed this...

Copyright law is not unenforced though. It is just reaching a point where the government cannot keep up with the enforcement. Technology has enabled copyright violation at a rate far beyond what the courts can keep up with.

It doesn't matter if a billion people break the law it doesn't make it right or make the law obsolete....

A simple "No, I can't support my position" would have been sufficient.

The copyright owner still owns it. Possession does not mean ownership. That's why software companies license software. The copyright owner still owns it. The law spells it out clearly. I can only point out to you, I can't make you understand it though. That requires a certain ability to actually be able to comprehend what the law says and what it means. Nothing's stopping you. There's consequences if you get caught but if you don't then maybe you got something for free......along with the knowledge that you're a thief even if no one knows that but you.

Yes, you are correct. I nominate you to be the Official SFN Grammar Checker

Irrelevant! What matters is what is supported by the observable evidence. All that's supported is the fact that "we don't know", nothing more, nothing less. To presume that there is or is not more to the cosmos than our universe is not science.

Can you prove all of that?

I guess I didn't word that right. I figured most would know what I meant from the context but it appears I assumed to much. I thought it was clear I was speaking of theories regarding the time before the Big Bang, where the universe came from, how it came to be, where matter came from, was it created or did it already exist, etc.. It's all just speculation. We have no observable phenomenon from that era which could be used to formulate a valid theory on the origin of the Universe...if there even was one.