padren

That's a very good video - glad it was pointed out, much appreciated.

I entirely agree it's probably not a Constitutional issue - or at least not a clear one. We have tons of situations in which nondisclosure is vitally important, and other situations where it's agreed upon via gag orders etc. Contracts can override free speech quite easily. My general point has to do with ethics - a school may not like what a student has to say outside of school, but the school has the unique position of being allowed to enact disciplinary actions against students, and appears to be using that ability to punish a student for something that isn't related to their performance or school activity at all. Ethically, even if not Constitutionally, I consider that an abuse of power.

That article definitely upset me when I read it. I recall my shenanigans in high school... I don't want to go into details but the administrative body went along with a plan that where they signed off on irreversible upgrades that they thought "would not cost more in maintenance" knowing full well they would, and then completely screwed the students, allowing them to suffer so the funding would have to be increased. We'd be learning the final material in physics before an exam week and our teacher would get sick, but since they could not afford substitutes we'd have to go to study hall and the couch would try and walk us through quantum physics - for days at a time. If you missed a class your teacher was present for, it was up to the teacher if you got in trouble, but if you didn't know your teacher was sick that day and you missed a class you'd be suspended for three days no matter what. My point being - free speech is rather important and there is very little a student could say that would not be considered to reflect poorly on the school in such a situation. I recall letters to the editor in the local community newspaper of parents taking students out of that school directly because of my rather public shenanigans - but even then I never had an issue of being censored by the school.

I KNEW it! And they always say they don't... just never had proof...

Well, instead of declaring them "not an ally" we could always put them on notice I think we definately need some shades of gray - it's not all "with us or against us" when you look at their performance - so you are right it's an interesting point. I think they should be put "on notice" (in so many words) privately, and publicly we should criticize them and acknowledge they often hinder progress, while acknowledging we are hopeful to improve the situation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Opium production was very very low during the Taliban, it was the rebels we allied with that started up production - we turned a blind eye so they could fund themselves and aid us as allies. I suppose if you ensured they were unoccupied you could keep worker deaths down. I do agree we should take the opium situation on, and not play favorites between factions that are with/against us. Getting more specific with your analogy though - the hard part isn't getting a view of your house where you can count the shingles. That's easy - it's picking out that square 500 feet of Earth as a worthwhile target to photograph at a given time - that's the intelligence nightmare. It's also very hard to tell what you are looking at much of the time (not so much with poppy fields) and we've actually been duped in the past into attacking caravans based on intelligence that was completely false, but some group wanted a hit out on them based on a personal grudge. Civilian activity and paramilitary activity can be pretty hard to distinguish at that altitude. It's even harder if you don't have a specific target location already in mind.

Just came across this today and I find it mind boggling. I'm still slowly coming to terms with the fact that many people think a pen would float on the moon and that astronauts wear heavy boots to keep from floating away - but this really hurts my brain. http://failblog.org/2009/02/04/verizon-math-fail/ ...and to think people like this buy houses after diligently crunching the numbers and making sure they can afford to. Did I mention the hurt?

I usually hate adding to jokes as I never can write them as well as the original but I'll take a stab at adding a few contemporary scenarios: SUBPRIME: You buy ten times as many cows by buying old and often sickly cows By always adding more cows, you ensure at any given time most cows will be alive To be extra safe, you keep all the cows in one, unhygienic poorly ventilated warehouse MADOFF METHOD: You take money for cows, and write checks back with the memo "Milk Profits" Maybe it's from milk, maybe it's from new investors No one is really paying attention BIG THREE AUTO: You specialize is milk from fat, overfeed grain guzzling cows You fire your milkers and move all your cows to Mexico, and have the milk shipped back Back home, you wonder why no one can afford milk WALLSTREET: You sell pieces of paper that say COW on them. Sometimes you buy back a few and sell back paper that says 3 COWS on them Little words like "subprime" that also sometimes appear on the paper tends to get lost in these transactions

I usually hate adding to jokes as I never can write them as well as the original but I'll take a stab at adding a few contemporary scenarios: SUBPRIME: You buy ten times as many cows by buying old and often sickly cows By always adding more cows, you ensure at any given time most cows will be alive To be extra safe, you keep all the cows in one, unhygienic poorly ventilated warehouse MADOFF METHOD: You take money for cows, and write checks back with the memo "Milk Profits" Maybe it's from milk, maybe it's from new investors No one is really paying attention BIG THREE AUTO: You specialize is milk from fat, overfeed grain guzzling cows You fire your milkers and move all your cows to Mexico, and have the milk shipped back Back home, you wonder why no one can afford milk WALLSTREET: You sell pieces of paper that say COW on them. Sometimes you buy back a few and sell back paper that says 3 COWS on them Little words like "subprime" that also sometimes appear on the paper tends to get lost in these transactions

First of all, those videos aren't exactly compelling evidence. I didn't watch the 2nd two because I don't have a couple hours to spare going through them. I hadn't read the threads you referred to before, so I didn't comment on them - just the general question you posed. Since this is really about a thread of yours that was closed - I am sure moderators have already told you - it's not a good idea to open threads complaining about closed threads. I'm not a moderator or anything, but I am pretty sure that is against the forum rules. The staff prefer private messages I think. That said, many people have posted threads complaining about their threads being closed, some to the point they ended up suspended or banned because they kept doing it. I am pretty sure the community here would agree with me when I say even when it comes to banning/suspending it's preferable to what happens otherwise - a ton of people spamming the boards whenever they disagree with a moderator. Don't take it personally, it's not about you and there are lots of threads that get closed when a poster breaks certain rules. Anyway, I'm not a mod, so those are just my personal thoughts as a member. Regarding the first two videos: Calling those proof are an extreme stretch. I am not even sure what is supposed to be considered "UFOs" in the first one, and the second seems really silly. I can't say for sure without personally really digging deep into every spatial factor but I suspect the changing angle of light and relative position with regards to the sun could be a component. Keep in mind: They gather a lot of film in which nothing strange happens... if you had a job of filming random numbers all day, pretty soon you'd have some random number sequences that were very uncanny, but that is to be expected, not taken as proof of an underlying order. Plus what the fellow says about "the number of objects in space would make space travel impossible" is completely off his rocker. Either they are up close and tiny (where you expect ice) or they are larger and in a huge volume of space. As for your other comments regarding cover ups etc... I'm not really interested in debating that, but I find the idea a bit of a stretch. I've debated that topic before and don't find anything new usually comes out of it, so I tend to pass on them in general. Anyway, I do recommend you try to get a feel for how the community here does work, and why it does work the way it does a bit before getting upset about it not working the way you expect. Personally I find it an exceptionally great format, hence I come here a lot, even though it seemed a bit different at first.

I don't make all life decisions scientifically, nor does anyone completely. However, when having a discussion within a scientific framework you have to apply some scientific rigors. Since this is a science minded forum even when other topics are discussed it's generally within the context of what one can demonstrate factually and with consistent logic without requiring a large number of assumptions. Personally I find the format very refreshing when it comes to online discussion boards, due to the sheer number of theories and ideas out there they become a blanket of white noise that never goes away in most places. As far as your question - I always welcome new evidence. I won't believe someone telling me this or that about the way they think the world is, but I'll look at the world and if it challenges some preconceptions all the better. The fact is I've had people telling me "how it really is" and to "open my eyes" for my entire life as far back as I can remember. I can say with absolute certainty that most if not all completely inaccurate as they are generally contradictory. As such, I don't make assumptions about how the world around me is one way or another unless I see reasons to in the world around me. When it comes to some other aspects of life I take a very non-scientific approach. When it comes to friendships and recreation and such, I am pretty impulsive and I certainly don't need "proof" that a beer is good before I try it. But when it comes to ideas regarding how the world works there are too many of them not to employ some reasonable methods to cut down the white noise.

But based on your definition you would be a god to many - especially if you have pets. I kinda like the idea... I need to grab a chisel and some flat stones, and take my dog up a hill THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GARBAGE! (because then I have to clean it up) Maybe then he'll finally take me seriously

It's a "checkbox" poll, so you can pick multiple instead of single items.

Greater? As in, Einstein who is smart, or, Douglas Adams who was over 6 and a half feet tall, or like whoever just won American Idol last? Would whales count, or an aspen grove? Can you define what properties and evaluations go into the definition of "greater" - I'm genuinely confused.

I thought this was going towards a human version of the Halting Problem for a minute - but I get what you are saying. Personally, I would define Immortality as an unending continuity of consciousness, which is not likely to happen. However, your definition is a different kind of immortality, but pretty much involves the "echos" of our impact, much the way Sisyphus said. But, if we go with that, I'll ask another question: Why is it important that "I" be googleable when the results of my actions could be traced to me or not, but have a far more reaching impact on the world? Is a person really more "Immortal" for having scratched "Joe Smith was here" on a wall somewhere, or an anonymous teacher that just happened to have a huge impact on the philisophical development a future world leader? Personally I think the latter has more meaning.

I imagine you can with a camera...

That will happen The thing though, is when you ask the question as per the title of this topic, I have to say that everything but hybrids, celestial objects, and the Universe are "gods" because they fit the definition. If you asked which fit the definition of "God" I'd have to say only the first, and possibly a second "Other" as "A being that created the Universe and/or Earth through metaphysical attributes" since "God" is a monotheistic term, and "gods" is a polytheistic term. There are "gods" that are also tied to celestial objects, such as Ra the sun god, but that wouldn't mean the Sun is a god within any other context. And of course - I don't actually believe any of them exist - just that nature of the definitions, so I don't know what we really can learn from this poll, sorry.

It starts with elementary particles and increases based on your post count. There are also a few custom ones floating around but you may want to ask "The resourceful one" or someone else about those as I am not sure.

Would you say the general gist of that quote matches up with:

Well, it is sadly the same place this goes on. http://www.thebody.com/content/news/art40835.html (though it is not limited to Nigeria)

He's liable to be more lenient on people who "got caught up" in the mutiny, than those that formulated it. I'm not sure what will happen to Gaeta and Zeric but it will probably be harsh. I think that because Gaeta was also sending intel to the resistance that he was working with the 8 under the belief she was helping (Athena was a sympathetic 8, so it wouldn't be a stretch) him aid the colonists - and the list was regarding people involved in the resistance. She must have found out he was involved, and pretended to help him instead of turning him over to the cylons - and used him in the process.

Did you by chance catch the "webisodes" they did in between seasons? It really didn't have a lot to do with the overall plot, but it definitely hits on why Gaeta got all psychotic on the cylons. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well the last time Kara and Gaeta had a disagreement she shot him in the leg - he should know what to expect by now. I doubt the Admiral will be as forgiving this time around.

Isn't "creator of the universe" one of the most basic components of the monotheistic definition? When I hear "God" I think monotheism, whereas believing in "Gods" polytheistic.

I thought the idea was far better too - but if you are in the banking industry, what will you lobby for? In one case, you get a ton of money from the government that you can lend to people and increase what they owe you, on top of what they already owe. In the other, you get money when people pay off their debts, but you trade equal amounts of debts for equal amounts of money. Call me jaded but I think it's easy to see what solution the "financial experts" in the banking industry will suggest works best in this sort of crisis. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I really would be interested in knowing the state of borrower confidence vs lender confidence right now. We hear the banks don't want to lend money - which is understandable, but consumer debt is crushingly high and I think a lot of people are holding off on that new car or flat screen out of fear of how how bad it may still get. If you helped free up people's consumer debt, enough of them will probably re-max it out in a day to offset the amount banks will actually put into the economy (some people may very well need to) and at the very least the remaining people will be far more confident to start buying again. What good is it for the banks to have money to loan, if everyone is already maxed out in the credit they can support for their income?

I think Iran is split on the issue: moderates are optimistic regarding improved relations and the opportunity to "tone it down" a bit, while the extremists who have no desire for improved relations fear the approach may work, and will only step up rhetoric to "warn" the rest of the Islamic world (ie, other Islamic nations somewhat estranged from the US) how evil we really are and not to be fooled. It's not likely seen as weak, but as a threat that can erode the anti-American sentiments that give common cause to nations scared of the US's foreign policy. In rhetoric, they'll call us "weak" for it of course, because they want to influence us away from that course of action.

Maybe it's only invisible when you close your eyes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Since you're going for British... With a terrible pain in all the diodes down it's left side. ...It is capped a small single row of very large domes along it's top from stern to bow near the middle of the ship.