padren

I have to try to ask a few key questions that seem to have very ambiguous answers as far as what people in this thread believe are the facts.... I'd like to see if we can come to some consensus on them: 1) The Hamas in power (is/is not) the same Hamas firing the missiles. From what I can tell, the leadership in Hamas supports the firing of these missiles, if not facilitates it. I've heard people state the contrary, and I think it's an important point. 2) Hamas is intentionally avoiding military targets. I read these missiles have no real guidance systems, they are just 'dumb fire' missiles that cannot be honed in on specific targets, and as such they have been fired at the largest general areas they can, in order to try to hit anything they can. 3) Palestinians are being held hostage by Hamas. I thought the majority of Palestinians have supported Hamas, and have not called for any international help to be "freed" from them. We have heard no cries for "please stop them from using us as human shields" and the like. To me, this implies the majority are not opposed to being used as human shields. 4) Hamas is attacking Israel in retaliation for denying Palestinians key, basic human rights that Israelis enjoy. From what I've been able to gather, Hamas wants the destruction of Israel, and has not asked for any economic/political concessions. I also get the impression that border controls and such do make life hard on Palestinians, but Israel is at a loss as to how to alleviate this issue when it has been the only way to stop terrorists from conducting terrorist acts inside Israel. I think if we can come to some consensus on these issues, we may be able to debate the finer points of the conflict easier. As it stands now, it's like we are arguing about Bush policies without knowing where we agree/disagree on what he has actually done.

Since we've opened a full can of worms, lets flip it over and tap the bottom: What about vegan pet owners that keep their dog on a vegan diet, and 'discipline' their dog for trying to snag a bit of bacon off the side walk? It likely isn't a religious belief, but a moral one all the same. I don't know of any instances, but theoretically, I could see a vegan refusing treatment that involved animal (especially primate) testing, and possibly refusing it for their children. There was a time in our history that if we could have (had the technology medically speaking) we would have accepted sacrificing a slave's life to save a white child's life, and considered it our moral duty to do so even against the protests of the parents. I think we've come a long way since then, but if a person truly believes using genetically modified pig organs (a current medical reality) to save their child is equally morally abhorrent as using organs of a slave, is it our duty to the child to do what we think is best anyway? It's definitely an interesting issue and I am usually quick to have a view on one side of an issue or another, but this one really gives me pause to think.

Honestly, if a handful of Palestinians managed to carry out attacks on Israel that were on scale with the 9/11 attacks in the US, including death tolls, I would consider that a less valid reason to invade Gaza than these missile attacks - if the 9/11 style attack was condemned by Hamas and general populous of the Palestinian civilians. The problem I see, is that (unless I see evidence to the contrary) these missile attacks are sanctioned, if not carried out by Hamas which holds popular support of the civilian population. If the Georgian government decided to suddenly launch missiles into Russia and basically declare war - that's their prerogative, but they'd be fooling themselves if they think they are not inviting a world of hurt down on their people, including civilians. No degree of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an act of war, changes the fact it's an act of war. If you try to use biological weapons to wipe out as many people as you can, but end up only killing a few cattle, does that mean you are only on the hook for minor property damage? Maybe the Palestinians are justified in starting their war - maybe, as I don't have all the details. That being said though, you cannot start a war with a much, much stronger enemy and not expect your own people (including civilians) to suffer. That is just madness. The people I really feel sorry for are those who appear to be a minority of Palestinians that do not like Hamas and do not support Hamas (at least privately) who, because their elected officials believe they should attack Israel even if their whole world burns - have been hijacked by this insanity.

Granpa, I think you are basically saying while we may compile more information that works and is consistent with yet more data, that eventually you end up finding you are relying on axioms at some point. If I understand you correctly, you pretty much mean knowledge is a "pyramid scheme" but I don't know if that is the same as circular. I think scientific knowledge though, is about trying to create working theories that describe what we see, and can make reliable predictions. There is never a guarantee that a theory is fact, or that it will always produce reliable predictions, just a level of "strength" based on all available data. Also, the mandatory:

I wouldn't say it hasn't been accepted - I could be wrong, but - Israel has adhered to cease fires and hasn't tried to occupy Gaza, so what are they denying the Palestinians? Isn't it Hamas that publicly refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Those independence/celebrated rebels didn't break cease fires by firing on foreign soil for years at a time. If the US had continued to attack England after the fighting had stopped, or the same in Ireland, do you think they'd have been celebrated? As you said yourself "They Palestinians had elected Hamas as their government through a fair election that was monitored by external observers." and Hamas sanctions, if not carries out these Missile attacks. Unless the Palestinian people are screaming for a new election, they are complicit in their elected government's attacks on Israeli soil. This isn't the "one kid" but the policy their elected party has publicly chosen. Did I miss some article of Hamas condemning the missile attacks, and promising to pursue the rogue criminals? Would you volunteer? I would love it if this could work but haven't they already shot and killed aid workers and fired on trucks with humanitarian supplies? I would really like to know what demands they feel are needed for peaceful coexistence to be possible. As it stands now, it seems they have ruled out peaceful coexistence.

Since this thread came back to life: YT, how have your sheds been since the bust? Did the thugs move on to safer pastures after realizing how quickly they could get caught, or do they keep messing with the sheds there? Are you still protecting your shed with the old phone?

Many Jehovah's Witnesses have been preventing their children from receiving transfusions for some time, even under life threatening conditions unless faced with legal action. While it is very hard to get "objective" data on such a vague topic, a great many suicides have been attributed to Scientology's hostility towards mental health professionals, insisting their followers resist western psychiatric medicine and "audit" their way through depression and such conditions. I can't say much about the Travolta case, other than it's high profile - but I would like to have an idea of some solid ground rules when it comes to religion, medical practices, and children. Personally, I am neutral on male circumcision, but strongly against what is called female circumcision, and generally think a parent can be considered negligent if they allow a child to die because they expected prayer to cure them. But something as simple and common as male circumcision - it is a one way procedure and robs the child of making that choice later in life, so technically it is on the same slope, just closer to the top than the bottom. I have a hard time thinking that the government should be in people's business to that degree, but at the same time I very strongly oppose (and consider it mutilation) female circumcision - but I can't really articulate where the line is drawn. It's definitely a good question.

I agree with you 100% and tried to post that in there, but quite annoyingly the thread was closed. I had to start a new one just to have my say.

I can understand where you are coming from, in that the question both asks Obama about his intended policies, while at the same time stating as fact that Bush "subverted" the Constitution. I personally feel he did, but I would agree the question's wording is politically loaded. I am a bit curious as to the degree of censorship going on in the site: If a bunch of tasteless people "vote up" a question asking "Will you have free fried chicken and watermelon served at your inauguration?", I would understand it being censored, but it could be a slippery slope to pick through the questions with a fine tooth comb. Regarding the domain name issue, maybe turning your campaign slogan into a .gov is a bit much, but it didn't bother me at the time. Perhaps a domain name simply called president-elect.gov would be better going forward in future elections that any president elect would get to use.

If this turns out to be true, then it would definitely be an example of Israel being out of line - but it doesn't change the events going on there. I don't think any war tends to "just stop" with a cease fire when one side uses banned tactics. I am sure there is a list of grievances on both sides a mile long going back to the birth of Israel and just recently Hamas has all but promised to kidnap and torture Israeli forces. Personally I am all for a cease fire and a peaceful solution, but as long as Hamas so much as sanctions missile attacks on Israel from within Gaza while in power in Gaza, they are providing an open invitation for warfare and civilian casualties in their own streets. Whether or not Israel is too indiscriminate in their targets is a valid but separate issue, but firing missiles into Israel isn't something you can do and expect no military response. What is the difference between launching missiles into Israel, and marching ground forces into Israel? I am open to learning if there is a difference in this case, but they both seem like acts of war to me right now.

I don't think self-simulation would be the correct element, and also, a computer could only simulate part of itself, not it's entirety - it could never simulate itself simulating itself as it could never hold the data. But humans aren't fully self aware either. We can "think about what we are thinking about" to a degree, but we have other sections of our brains creating that effect, which we can't be aware of because then we'd need yet larger unknown sections to create our awareness of those. In other words - I am pretty sure the subconscious is a necessary component of a conscious mind. I suspect a computer program can be aware of itself, but I am not sure what that would require. Consciousness to me, seems to be not about the data, but about the relationship between elements of data. To be aware of a number "5" you need to aware of how it is different from at least something else, such as the numbers 1,2,3 and 4. Logic gates can flip bits and perform mathematical calculations on those numbers - but it happens in a manner as automatic as my cells processing oxygen, a process I am keenly unaware of. So maybe, if you had not so much a simulation, but a small amount of data being processed, and a larger block of data that somehow reflects how the program is using that data, and the contrasts in that data.... maybe it would be conscious, but I really don't know.

If you want to be sure you don't become one, count your rounds and save the last bullet... Katana would be the best weapon for close combat backup, as it's light, easy to carry on the run when not in use, and is the least exhausting to wield - though against enough zombies your arms can turn to lead just as sure as your gun can run out of lead, so I'd recommend multiple firearms. I think I'd have to hijack/steal/acquire a good sized blimp - can't go wrong floating in the air, looking for the best areas from above to drop down and loot for supplies, and you wouldn't need many people. A good sized sea worthy ship could keep you alive longer and less dependent on land, if you can get a decent crew. With a "Scout Blimp" and decent radios, the ship would be the next thing to add for sure. You may even be able to find small isolated islands that don't have any infected (or even people), and set up decent base camps. With proper quarantine conditions, you could find survivors and ferry them to your new outpost of civilization. Regarding the "flies" and two weeks - you may have to wait longer. It could take months for infection to spread, especially around the globe. Zombies would take days to walk somewhere, infect new people, and days for those zombies to infect more, etc... so zombification could keep pace with the flies and their dezombification for some time. For all we know, zombie flesh may not be suitable for flies - it's dead, but it's still animated, so the chemistry could be just foobar enough to dissuade flies from laying eggs.

I'm pretty sure they wanted to goad the US into a long, protracted war guerrilla in the middle east that would unite the Muslim world against the west. It didn't exactly unite all Muslims against the west, but it did wonders for their recruitment programs. Plus, those hijackers did not represent any governmental body the way Hamas does in Gaza, which also blurred the issue of who to retaliate against. For Hamas to fire missiles into Israel though, would be more like Cuba cheering on their government firing missiles into Florida - completely suicidal and leaves no room for question about the military response. If they want an open war with Israel then they are on the right track, but it's crazy to think that the world would deplore Israel when their Gaza civilians caught in the cross fire they start... or to think that they have any chance better than Cuba would against the US. They aren't exactly going to bring down the Israeli armed forces with their missiles - they'll just leave Gaza burning and take a number of Israeli casualties with them.

I honestly can't understand what Hamas is thinking right now, especially with the Israeli ground operations mentioned in the other thread... what kind of strategy can they be playing at? Let me see if I understand the way this has been going, because maybe I'm missing some important facts: Hamas starts firing missiles into Israel after the cease fire lapses, and Israel responds with air strikes, and Hamas refuses to stop firing missiles into Israel. If that's the case, what on Earth do they think they can gain from continuing to fire missiles into Israel?? The only thing I can even imagine them hoping to get out of it, is the very ground invasion underway, and if that is what they want - then is this some "draw Israelis into Gaza and let Gaza burn to kill Israelis" wacko plan? What country on Earth just puts up with missiles being fired into their territory? I could understand why this would be a "gray area" if it was "rogue elements" that were firing the missiles despite condemnation of the Palestinian National Authority, but how is this gray at all under the current situation?

I wonder if you could put it on your dog's head and get anything out of the output... You'd probably need adjust it a bunch, but I wonder if it could be used for non-intrusive animal research, maybe even help vets find out where an animal feels pain, or if they are in chronic pain at the moment and such.

Also, about bird flu - if I recall correctly it wasn't the bird flu itself that everyone was freaking out about, it was that it had a very good possibility of going from avian -> human to human -> human transmission with minor mutations, at which point it would have very high pandemic potential. What scared everyone was that it had a large enough breeding pool to see those mutations emerge within a high enough probability and cause a pandemic.

Well, a vote against Sayonara3 is pretty much a vote for starving the poor orphans in China - all candidates much vote for Sayonara3 now to distance themselves from the very unpopular pro starvation of orphans.

Here's a stumper: I'm like life, but don't you fret you never know what you're gonna get Okay, but seriously - anyone have any good riddles?

I can see the polls, but I want to know who real Sfners are voting for in real Sfnia.... not the ivory tower out of touch Sfners - I want to hear from people who's first names and occupations can be combined in a manner I can relate to!

I think the "automated enclosed" would allow routing without "transfers" from point to point travel. Though, I personally think a hybrid system would work better because you just can't build a secondary infrastructure large enough to get to everyone's driveway.

I may be wrong but I think it sort of has negative connotations because of it's use during the era of segregation, so when someone chooses to use that term today (for reasons other than being a 80 yr old grandmother) some sort of tie to that era seems implied in the comment itself, often in a less than dignified manner.

Seems to me if Burris stays, he will be less than loved in the Senate regardless of his (or lack thereof) qualifications... the only real solution I see is for him to broker an agreement in good faith to serve temporarily until Blagojevich is ousted, and abide (agree to resign when the time comes) by the choice of Blagojevich's successor should it be someone else. All in all I think the basic idea is it's political suicide to fight the Senate and popular opinion and try to dig in. If he uses the position Blagojevich's is giving him to help find a solution that makes everyone happy (regardless of whether he ends up holding the position himself) he has a better chance of being chosen as the best person for the job by the senate itself. If he tries to argue over the semantics and tells the senate to "stick it" because technically Blagojevich has not been ousted yet, he'll be tainted for his whole career. He should throw Blagojevich so far under the bus he ends up buried under the bus station.

Actually, it's Hummus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummus

Forgive me if this already came up, but when it comes to the religious definition of marriage, the one thing I can't get is - who owns that definition? There have been some "rouge" (or progressive, depending on your view) priests that have performed same sex marriages, and of course many more conservative branches have condemned them, and a minority has celebrated them. What I don't get is if the religion definition means so much, who's definition(s) gets to apply? Part of it is the question of what a "religion" is - the first protestant churches didn't exactly sit well with the Vatican, they were seen as taking something that was "theirs" and twisting it. Back then the idea of a priest saying "We are Christians, but the Vatican is wrong and these things are okay/not okay" must have been as infuriating as it was baffling - a different interpretation of their holy doctrine supporting heretic views. At this point we recognize protestants as equally as we recognize the church they branched out from. We even recognize the Mormon church, as new as it is. So, if we can say "you want to believe this Joseph Smith guy was right, no problem - we'll respect your religious beliefs" why can't we say "you want to believe this priest that says the bible does not oppose same sex marriage, we'll respect your religious beliefs" in the same manner? How can we reject a religious same-sex marriage, and not be violate their religious rights? The only response I've ever gotten to that, is that marriage also has a legal definition that has standards - yet, when we talk about the legal definition, all I hear is it also has a religious definition that has standards. Not saying anyone here is saying that, but what is the way out from this circular logic?

That's a good point, and after thinking about it more, I guess human response times to surprise events is really not that great - less than an automated system may be able to achieve. I think though, it may help if we see an increase in "drive by wire" technology, which would have to hit before any automation could be in place anyway. I am sure more than one distracted driver will try to blame their car's UI, and it will take a while to trust it will be more reliable than MS Vista, but after a period of mistrust followed by general acceptance, it could help pave the way for automated systems. Drive by wire is slowly entering the consumer market, I wasn't around for it but I wouldn't doubt it if automatic transmission had it's share of skeptics too. Drive by wire may be the perfect inroad because it doesn't need a high number of adopters to be introduced, whereas automation is only viable if there are a lot of people willing to jump on the bandwagon when it's introduced. Thanks for the link npts2020, I'll be digesting that for a bit.