padren

Ice brewed in the cold cold cold depths of space

I generally agree, but what if you think the question itself (whether there is a god or not) is not worth asking in the first place, and can't be bothered to think about it one way or another? Is there an alien spaceship hiding behind the moon? You can believe there is, or believe there isn't, or simply find the question not worth forming a belief about.

Just a note on the poll: Option 3 is not mutually exclusive with regards to Options 1 and 2: You can believe/not believe in the existence of god - and still believe we do not have knowledge of God's existence. Personally: Strong Agnostic - I don't think it's possible to know if there is a god, because I don't think our senses and faculties are capable of differentiating if any given perceived entity actually did create us and the universe. Any entity approaching that capacity would far exceed the requirements to completely deceive us.

The idea of using a pure photon engine is appealing because it would be pretty cool to have a "propellant-less engine" but it does seem to take a lot of energy to get any thrust. Out of curiosity, what sort of returns can you get by using that same energy to superheat a propellant, where you have a standard combustion of something like oxygen/hydrogen but utilize fusion to over heat it? Is it conceivable to add energy via a nuclear source that could break the classic boundaries we experience with the chemical maximum potential? A moderate gain could have large implications when it comes to getting out of Earth's gravity, as the current "max thrust / mass" of chemical propellants require massive amounts of heavy fuel.

The problem I see with Israel being charged with war crimes (and in fact, pretty much anything the ICC can do other than in extreme cases) is the fact any law selectively enforced cannot be just in it's execution. Justice and Equality have to go hand in hand, or it doesn't exist, period. I can see the ICC having a useful purpose in providing agreeable standards for nations to deal with extreme cases, such as the equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials... but to selectively pick at any possible deed that could be deemed a war crime either has to be equally called against all who commit them on that scale, or it's just a mob making examples out of whomever they see fit. I will say though - the article mentioned says there have been calls for the ICC to get involved, but I didn't see anywhere in that article that the ICC has gotten involved - is there any update on this? If the ICC does investigate this I would desperately hope they see the need to stop first, establish standards with the international community on when issues on this scale should(must) be referred to them, and then proceed forward with that mandate regarding Israel and any others that fall within it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is a pretty wide range of what is considered an "Illegal Order" though. Being ordered to decapitate a captive's child to extract information would be pretty black and white. However, being ordered to fire on a gathering of protesters could get gray in a hurry if: 1) A soldier is told they have to be ready to fire if the crowd begins firing. 2) Sporadic fire is occurring, but the soldier holds for the order. 3) Soldier is ordered to open fire, (assumed to be in response to being fired on) 4) It is later determined the officer in charge gave that order while knowing the crowd was not actually responsible for firing on the soldiers. Technically the soldier fired on a non-violent gathering of protesters - is he guilty of that crime? Does a soldier have to personally verify the conditions on the ground, or do we require him to rely on the intel he's given?

Those mix "pure oxygen" in with air, so you are just really breathing "higher percentage of oxygen" in the end, whereas actually 100% oxygen can be a bit dangerous. That was of course a "pure oxygen environment" but it would burn just as easily in one's lungs if you had a ciggy too soon after.

There was that one disconcerting thread with the fellow that wanted to inhale pure oxygen or hydrogen (forget which) and there was a lot of concern as to the effects of nearby sparks on the subject. I tried to search but couldn't find it... curse my poor memory and keyword skills. As for most worrisome potential threads... "HELP! MY [destructive foreign insect type] COLONY ESCAPED!!"

Argh, level 31... only... 5 to finish...

Found this and I have to say it's very distracting and kinda interesting to get into time as an element of solving puzzles: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/peepls/files/85.swf Basically, you are a time traveler and you have to get parts to fix your ship, but each level can only be solved if you work "with yourself" by doing certain actions, then going back to the time machine and going to the start, where you can get farther as you watch the previous versions of yourself go about their various actions that you did before. And, if you change the environment in a manner that kills off or strands a previous version of yourself - you get a paradox and have to restart. I got to lvl 18, but if I let it distract me anymore I'll need a time machine to go back and get all my work done!

When I was a kid we had a Mac - now I am going to have nightmares about that disk drive sound! It had so little memory it could not load everything it needed off one disk and then just ask for a second after... the system disk would prep and ask for data off the other disk, you'd swap, it'd load it, then it would need the system disk for more and that would need more data off the second so you'd swap... It did generally hit that equilibrium where you rarely had to swap, but only after a lot during the OS start up or starting up a program. It was tedious. It was a godsend when we finally got an external disk drive... but it is pretty amazing what they could do at the time.

That's a bit extreme, but an understandable comparison. Any solution has to account for all factors to "work" in the end, a report card of sorts that gets marks on cost, effectiveness, and impacts including those on civil liberties. I can agree that those aspects mean more to some than others - national security trumping civil liberties in the previous administration for instance. Take education: some may believe the best way to solve the problem is to have only private schools, and utilize a voucher program so parents can choose the private school their kids go to. Even if you believe that is ultimately the best way (considering where we are now and the dire need to improve education at this very moment) - would it be better to unilaterally fight only for that solution, and against any other, or support an "in term" solution that includes an increase in funding of public schools that also includes solid policies that improves the quality of education within those institutions? This is the sort of compromise I consider beneficial that I am talking about. I'll agree about "works" but I don't think "preferred" is the correct word at all. I think "is more practical for the moment" may be better. If a good free market solution could reign in the costs of health care and address the coverage and quality issues too - I'll happily support it if it's a tight solution. Ideologically I tend towards skepticism regarding that approach, but if my concerns can be put to rest I would give it a try. Well firstly, the ideology does not have a solution that is either strong or weak. A solution is conceived by people who ultimately have some ideological views, and that specific solution may be both ideological and weak. When you look at a lot of policy decisions, you can almost read between the lines of "we know this solution could be better and has some holes that have to be sorted out... but at least it's a step in the right direction" where right means "a step in the right ideological direction." Those are the weak ideological solutions that I refer to, and they often get supported down ideological lines. I suppose there is another type of "weak ideological solution" in which the holes are assumed to be "minor" due to an ideological belief that they will be filled in naturally - on the conservative side the "invisible hand" is often one which Greenspan put a lot of faith in. What I mean about Obama is he seems far more concerned with how well a specific program will function efficiently to the ends it was created for, and less with whether it's "left" or "right" in nature, and as such rejects ideas from the left that don't function well. I think that is why we see more confidence in him from the right than we would for say, Hillary had she been elected.

I think we miss an important factor here - there are a few shades of ideology. You have an extreme left/right, where people who comprise those areas genuinely belief only their ideology can succeed and all other approaches are doomed to fail (think Rush), then you have the "soft left/right" near the middle, that believe one approach or the other is the best but not only way to solve problems. In those "soft" areas people will genuinely believe a strong solution on the opposite side will be better than a weak solution on their own side. In fact, I'd wager to say a large part of politics is driven by not an iron clad certainty in their "one true approach" but a fear of "the other side's solution done badly" - which I can say drove much of my fear about the Bush administration's approach on many issues. I very much like nationalized health care, but I'd dance in the streets for a good free market solution if it was done well, and cringe at one done badly. If there's one thing Obama has become known for, it's refusing to embrace a weak solution for ideological purposes (the accuracy of that perception will be known better over time) and that greatly increases his credibility on the other side of the isle. The hardest thing for Obama to tackle in my mind, is bills that include issues like abortion or sex ed, because they are such "give no ground" issues to a lot of conservatives that any cooperation will be seen as a sellout to a Republican's constituents.

And a bot that gets around. When the inanimate imitate the living and resurrect threads... I can't help but find it all a little creepy.

You do raise some interesting points, but on the one I quoted I can't help but to think it's mostly other factors, which make it difficult to test. For instance, Malaysia is a self proclaimed Islamic country, but is pretty stable. It also is fairly tolerant of alcohol which could be read as supporting your suggestion - but it could be a side effect of tolerance in general: that highly intolerant societies (of alcohol, or anything else) seem to have more problems.

That's a great Frontline piece, I am glad I took the time to watch it. I really like he's not afraid to upset people on "his side of an issue" and can focus on a solution, instead of just a "win" for one side. It appears once "his allies" get over the shock that they won't get to railroad the opposition, they begin to appreciate his stance better which is a testament to his skills in itself. One key difference between here and Harvard is it'll be a lot harder for Republicans to appear to work with him, if their constituents feel their values are being betrayed. Overall I think he has the best chance of building bridges, and the political climate is as welcoming as it can be. That was also a great letter - thanks for sharing both of these.

I'm going with Platyroo, just for the challenge of squeezing yet more animals into that already bestricken creature. And with Kangaroo legs, (with the right hip bone stucture) a Platypus might just be able to be pretty kick'n at doing the frog-kick swimming technique. Plus, it could do some sweet jumps out of shallow water.

I have to call benefit. Our society would not be nearly as rich and diverse in terms of the arts without it. In my opinion, just having had the experience of getting hammered enough to no longer be able to recognize yourself helps a person be less confined in their thinking especially when it comes to having patience understanding someone else who has a very different perspective. Once you see the range you can have, it makes you more flexible and open to understanding the range other people can have. I'll admit there could be long term damages if done too much I'll admit.

Obama's rather simple quote "We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms." in there really exemplifies why I've been waiting for this as well as why I've really been unhappy with the previous Administration's policy. It really is a breath of fresh air.

Well, for a quick cross section of a few things that lefties often believe in: * Health care quality * Education * Wealth Gap * Death Penalty * Progressive union labor We rank rather low compared to European countries in those categories (and first world nations in general), and so it's understandable that if those are the values that matter to you then you'll be embarrassed by how badly we "fail" at them. If course, we only "fail" as a liberal nation because (no matter how many times you have to tell this to a liberal) we aren't a failing liberal nation we are moderate (perhaps a little more to the right) nation. We do need to address some of those issues regardless of ideology (health care, education) and some others may be best solved by liberal, moderate or conservative approaches. But if you are a die-hard liberal, you are going to view the US as a distressed liberal nation, being held back by anti-progressive conservatives. So I think you are kinda right ParanoiA - but it's more correlation than causation. As to gun control itself, there are a few issues that even I get concerned about: 1) Theft of firearms due to home invasion when owners are away 2) Criminals caught with illegal guns that can't be proven as illegal who are released and go on to commit crime. 3) Self/Family/Friend injury/fatality statistics in gun owning households Being a permanent resident, I can't own a gun yet but I do plan to when I get citizenship. The best way around issue #1 that I can see is keeping a firearm in "home defense mode" (ie, not in a safe) when home, but always locking it when out of the house. It's been a while since I read up on the statistics, so I don't know how they sit, but I would really like it if the issue could be addressed openly without fear of a "creeping agenda" by the left to ban all guns. 2) No idea how much this comes up, it may be very rare but gets play for the emotional effect... but if it is a legitimate issue I am open to regulation assuming it doesn't unduly impact law abiding gun owners. 3) Keeping a gun locked when a child is home alone may help - but I guess a parent can decide that. I knew a kid who died at a friend's house when his buddy showed him his dad's gun, so my experience is kind of skewed. I really have no idea how to mitigate the "bad neighbor" effect. I think the gun issue is an effective wedge for the right because there are a lot of "social libertarians" that get mixed in with the "social liberals" and this issue is very good at polarizing these camps, where they usually end up working together without much trouble.

I think that even though these measures could be abused, the spirit of their intent is being made very clear - he did not have to do this - and it sets a precedent that makes abuse of spirit through a technicality harder to forgive down the road, and thus helps to dissuade such future actions. Regardless of whether it's airtight it sets a very good tone for what conduct will be viewed as ethical going ahead.

No one is talking about achieving 100% guaranteed safety - but where we can take small actions that have a big impact on safety. Washing your hands doesn't not protect you 100% from germs, but it sure helps. The real issue is reducing cost to human life due to unintentional causes, as well as illegal causes... without putting undue constraints on law abiding legal gun owners. Many people fight to put undue strain on gun owners because they believe gun ownership is archaic and socially irresponsible, while some gun owners fight to push recklessly loose gun laws because they feel their own justifications. So the real question then is what constraints are "undue" and which are "reasonable" and I suspect that will come from a middle ground approach, considering how far apart the extremes can be. Personally I sympathize with the efforts of those trying to reduce illegal gun use but I find the potential "dragnet" abuses that may come with repealing the Tiahrt Amendment very disconcerting. Secondarily to that, the disappearing/reappearing act of that text on Obama's site is a disappointment.

I can understand where you are coming from ParanoiA - It's almost a "can't fool everyone all the time" sort of concern... in which one administration sucks huge amounts of money out to defend against shadowy terrorist threats that half the people see as blatant fear mongering and completely corrupt, while the other half see it as an absolute imperative. Then, changing of the guards, and a new administration fools the other half of people by saying we have to suck tons of money out of us to defend against shadowy market forces threatening social services, while the other half of the people see it as completely ineffective. It could be one of those scenarios. I can't tell, because I'd fall into the half that felt terrorism was over hyped and I actually believe we need to temporarily boost social programs to do repair work. The one thing I do like about his spending mentality is he seems to want to budget money for repairs to programs, not inflating programs themselves. There of course is a lot of danger of this happening as there always is in government, but I think it can be done right. I guess only time will tell. Regarding the whole disagreement on what is "civil" to disagree about immediately following the inauguration I think part of the deal is that, yes - it's perfectly understandable that many people do not support his ideology, and will be quick to point out where his ideology is enacted with some degree of hypocritical elements. It's also not fair to throw the "Bush was worse" card out as a blanket defense, since we probably can all agree he's not a decent standard to measure any president's actions by. What I think people are (perhaps preemptively) jumpy about, is Obama being attacked for doing exactly as he promised because some people don't agree with the promises he made. That, and perhaps the finer points about the sending on the inauguration could be legitimately seen as nitpicking, and at the same time as a genuine concern - it's gray enough I can understand both perspectives.

I have to agree with you there. If it is then repealed, where can this information end up and who can request it? It strikes me as rather hypocritical if he takes a strong stand against racial profiling, but then feels it's okay to throw a dragnet that profiles all law abiding gun owners that have never committed a crime.

Since we've gone on a political theme for a few posts, let me see if I can make this one work as a non visually: What does Obama mean when he says he wants to bring change for Americans? Hand him a dollar and see what you get back.

I didn't catch anything before Obama began his speech, but when I read that part here, I could help hearing "and when the cat can be wear'n that hat" pop into my head