padren

Since we cannot objectively tell what really is "truth" then all use of the term is subjective, and is used to describe what is personally viewed as truth. We generally only use it when we are describing what we feel is a truth that contracts a more widely accepted perception of that facts in the matter. Whether its the truth about VIOXX (since it was assumed safe and turned out not) or the truth about Evolution (assumed to be a scientifically sound theory yet actually isn't when you examine that it blatently contradicts unfalable scripture) it is used in that context to express a "corrective" viewpoint. I don't like seeing it, but at the same time, its not that special, and even when its used to back up horribly unfounded statements it is still the percieved truth of the writer (usually, excluding politics of course).

How is it any different to reproduce a cartoon depicting mohammad vs displaying an add for smoked ham? The only people who should worry, would be people who are actually adhering to the tenets of the said religion, and then it should be between them and their pastor/priest/mosque leader etc. My first reaction to the cartoons was, to produce a cartoon with a person physically having sex with a mule, with the said person being blocked out with a big black censor block and the caption "For reasons of respecting religious sensesitity, Mohammad has been obscured in this cartoon" Yes it would be offensive and crude, but I find the whole idea that people of other faiths being forced to adhere to the tenets of other people's faiths pretty offensive and crude. I hope it is not a theme that catches on.

I know I've been very skeptical in this thread as to how much the Bush Administration's successes has prevented another attack in the US on the scale of 9/11. I also understand its a hard thing to evalute, as we can only see either A) an attack happens, and we blame Bush for failing or B) no attack happens, and we are not clear on the reason. I will ask this though: What specifically has Bush done that would that can be viewed as detering such an attack? I agree strongly, that action in Afghanistan has cut down their ability to train and launch terrorists, which has been the result of Bush's response. I am also worried though, that the campaign in Afghanistan has not been nearly as successful as we would like. They are producing heroine in large amounts, we do not know how many warlords may have back end deals with terrorist members, we don't know how many of their leutenents may have back end deals - and we really don't have full control of that country either. I do think it has helped, but I am not sure how much and whether this can be considered a fatal blow, or simply a campaign that has caused them to change their methods to remain hidden. Whether that has prevented attacks or not...I am still skeptical. Secondarily, the campaign in Iraq probably has not benefited the war on terror. It put an end to one dictator's capacity to potentially aid terrorist acts, but I don't think that campaign on the whole has hurt al quada's ability to attack us. So its not unlike the question of how much Bill Clinton helped the economy: just because we experience a rebound when he's the sitting president, doesn't prove the connection, so what I am mostly curious about is how we can connect a lack of attacks with actions we take to prevent them.

I do think some degree of magnetic field sense would be entirely possible, just that it doesn't exist in humans. Its worth looking at what sharks can do though with electrical fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini

It sounds like the key innovation in your idea is to abandon more traditional thermal transfer methods (heat sink blades extending from circulation pipes etc) and cool the air instead by passing it through one bubble at a time in the liquid coolent body. It may very well be more effecient, and is certainly simpler to construct. The airflow would also naturally accelerate the circulation of the coolent. The only problem I see is with the system for keeping the coolent cool. The heat produced at the back of your fridge to produce the ice will be greater than the cool released by the melting of said ice to its previous state temperature. As far as I know, evaporative coolers are the only kind of cooler that does not need to expel a greater amount of heat, and they only work in low humidity. I am sure though, you could get a nice cool localized effect in the area you want with the device you describe. If you were to glue some rubber tubing to a weighted baseplate in a snaking pattern, poke a whole bunch of small holes in it, then connect the airpump's tube to that, you could probably get a larger number of smaller bubbles, increasing the surface area to volume ratio per bubble and increase the degree to which the air is cooled.

The whole premise of the gateway drug is kinda flawed I think. I mean, if X people will choose try try heroine at some point, chances are they'll be open to trying marijuana too, and its easier to get (in some places). and Ku: I can't help but to wonder so I'll ask: did you ever analyze your interest in the stuff? I know addiction is real in general, and can affect one's decision making greatly, but I've always believed it is best to change what you want to do instead of throwing up stumbling blocks for oneself. If I wanted to be a vegitarian agian, I wouldn't just stop eating meat and pine for it every day - I'd go to a slaughterhouse and throw up a lot, and love tofu with a passion. I have no idea what the equivelent would be, but it just seems strange to passively accept desires while blocking them instead of changing them. Sorry, that is quite sidetracked. On Topic: I do think people have psychological and social needs that are very driving, and can be satiated by computer use, which in turn would result in a dependancy of sorts. I can't speak to the literal addiction element though.

Then how will your future self ever generate the nessecary 1.21 gigawatts!

I just found out about this article from Sept 05, so it isn't exactly timely, but it really upset me actually. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4221538.stm I've disliked the censorship that we've aided the chinese in implementing, but for a US firm, and people working at that firm in the US, who get to pay lip service to how much they love freedom and put yellow ribbon magnets on their cars and all that good stuff, then turn around and help send a guy off to jail for 10 years who simply tried to get information out about how bad they have it. Honestly I don't care if the US legal system required an employee at Yahoo to hand that info over to the Chinese - how can anyone that respects the society we have be willing to be so complicit in the oppression of people elsewhere? It really upsets me, and I've never had any respect for our arms sales to dictatorships and whatnot, and I know this isn't an isolated case. I just don't understand how someone can live with themselves when they comply to help suppress people and imprison them who's only crime is to want a society one iota closer to the one we live in and claim to respect and value. It just feels so much worse than the decadance of the late roman empire that I can't even imagine how history will remember it.

What I read, and I really can't recall where I read it...was more on the lines that it was an exploitive attempt to bleed out as much emotional saccharin as can be squeezed from a horribly tragic event under the pretense of honor and patriotism. In other words, its 100% opposite of the Rolling Stone review, and what everyone here has said. I don't put any faith in that bad review on account that it appears to be an anomoly, and could easily be the reviewer's preconception before ever walking into the theatre. There have been a few made-for-tv movies on 9/11 that apparently (I never saw any) that were bad and perhaps the bad reviewer biasedly lumped it in as being of those ilk. I am actually curious how they "humanized the enemy" now, because frankly most American cinema tends to work of polarized points of view, and since I am sure they didn't inhumanize the passengers I am curious what they did do. I may just have to see it now. Side note: I definately think that the events on that plane had more to do with why we haven't had any follow up attacks of that nature than all the confiscated nail clippers put together. Terrorists could pull machine guns from under their seats, and they still wouldn't get control of a plane today.

I haven't seen the movie, though I might. I had read some horrible reviews on it, but it sounds a lot better on this thread, to the point of sounding worth the watch. One of the most amazing things I thought came out of 9/11 was that, the hijackers had all the planes in the air, at a time in our culture's history where universally, when there is a plane hijacking, you are supposed to cooperate and not cause any trouble, just like a bank robbery. In the course of the execution of this terrorist attack, while U93 was still in the air people on that plane, already forced into the back, discovered via calls to their families and the authorities what the terrorists were doing, and responded to it the very best way they could, throwing out the old rules of how to act in a hijacking situation completely. Its a testament to the ease of communication that we have embraced as a culture, in a time when places like China filter out what people can look up on Google. The vulnerability we had at the time those planes took off (in ease of controlling passengers) was no longer present in our culture, including on one of the very hijacked planes before their attacks could be completed. Somehow that fact chokes me up whenever I think about it. Any biological creature in the world would envy such a immunilogical response time in dealing with a completely new threat.

I think it makes sense, I would like to be sure its very safe before it becomes standard use. I wonder if it would be embraced or rejected by the current meat industries, given that slaughterhouses would have a ton to loose, and that their skills, equipment and proceedures would not give them any advantage in converting to growing meat. The pharma companies would be in a better position to get into the meat market than the traditional slaughterhouses. That means most likely, a major "scare everyone" campaign would kick up when it becomes economically viable to grow meat.

With Plutonium it appeared all too easy to create a chain reaction in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin which was barely averted. It does sound like the process of refining the radioactive metals to weapons grade is pretty involved. Also, if you could just buy uranium online and have a nuclear arsenal, Iran wouldn't be going to all the trouble it is. If Iran is only slowly developing weapons, then it would be much slower for a loose network of terrorists.

I didn't mean to imply the tabacco company is precieved as good guys - they have a well documented pattern of behavior that is very negative. My feelings are that from a rational, unemotional perspective, Bush also has a well documented pattern of behavior that is also very negative. I can't speak for rabid anti-bushies, but I can only imagine they never feel wrong...no more than limbaugh regrets attacking clinton all the time. And unless a lot of heroine was involved, I can't imagine clubbing a baby seal would feel good to begin with. I do agree I am using the man's record of actions to evaluate the most likely motives for his current actions, but its not like I am assuming his motives are bad because he's a conservative. If McCain was president and did the same thing, I would be much more likely to believe he did it for the right reasons.

I agree there is a risk of making that sort of mistake, but I don't think it is a good comparison. Squirrels hide nuts instinctively, then dig them up instinctively, and survive better for it. These apes did not have an instinctive drive to bring that specific tool at a time that would just happen to be useful later. Therefore it sounds like evidence of planning ahead based via their congitive functions, as opposed to preparing ahead based on a survival instinct.

If we talk as a nuclear power that reserves the right to use nukes over civilians in the middle east' date=' why do we think we deserve to be immune to the same? We referred to Russia as the Evil Empire for ages, and I really doubt it was an issue of runaway rhetoric...other than perhaps to some degree, they started to believe their own propaganda and believed it could help achieve their aims. I don't think a direct attack on Saudi Arabia would be expected, but I do think a general middle eastern conflict leading to a souring of relations could have been a goal. I do think they wanted to provoke us into war, which they hoped more muslims would have rallied with them in. The thing is that while we see them as Bond-eque villians, they actually believe they are on the side of justice and think they have a reputation to protect. They are happy to resort to terrorism and they are all criminals, but they honestly believe their actions are justified, and they probably believed more of the muslim world would have agreed with their justifications. They'd view it as their reputation was unjustly tarnished when that majority of muslims "failed to see how bad the westerners were and how much they deserved it" or whatever, and while their willingness to use such tactics would not pass, I am sure they considered the fallout of doing something on the scale of 9/11 again. If they could just get a free attack on US soil, maybe they would take it, or at least some in the organization surely would, but what would they get out of it? Last time it made the entire US rally around an incredibly unpopular and indictment-headed president and gave the world a reason to feel "understanding" while we tore through Afghanistan. I do think they are horrible people, who would slit a child's throat just for being the child of an American. They should be hunted down. But what goals would they really achieve? They would love it if the US fell off the map. They probably want to see the US fail and be invaded by islamic extreemists - sure - but when they are planning how to achieve any given result, I think their overall goal is to drive the US out of the middle east and run islamic regimes "their way" and grow as a world superpower. They want relations between the US and Indonesia etc to sour, and to see the whole muslim world unite under their banner. I think they believe that is the first step in destroying the US, and another attack may not be viewed as the best way to achieve that.

Considering the degree to which the Bush administration was in bed with these guys when they were screwing everyone, anything less would look like Ford pardoning Nixon. Whatever did happen with all that secret energy plan stuff that Cheney kept trying to keep covered up? Don't get me wrong - I am all in favor of the convictions. I just don't think a dedication to the cause of justice has anything to do with it.

We should first finish the sentence: "They view an attack on the US is valuable to them because..." Within the context of their goals, is it worth expending that level of effort in an attack on US soil, or is it more of a liability?

Can I resist making a crack at vegan diets? You need to start getting more protein! (Can't resist, as long as its only in good fun)

Perhaps their primary goal was to create a rift between Saudis and the US, expecting us (given the number of Saudi hijackers) to invade there instead of Iraq, with the majority of the Muslim world falling in line behind the Saudis. They are extreemists, they expect other muslims to secretly feel the extreemists are right, but to not have the courage to accept it when things are comfortable. A war between the West and the Islamic world would be expected to "shock" the moderate muslims into seeing they had been seduced by western culture, and expose that they are really like. What happened on 9/11, was the majority of the world, including the majority of muslims rallying around the US and feeling that terrorism is a global threat to everyone. We've erroded that support better than anyone could have imagined since then, but I am sure the memory of it is still strong in their minds, and they don't want to increase support against them. If the US does decide to use tactical nukes in Iran though, I can't imagine that anyone would have sympathy for us if they nuked New York and DC. Whether the delivery system is a cruise missile or a suitcase, a nuke is a nuke.

Don't forget the "don't blame me I vote for a sexy third party" crowd. I do think it was horribly disrespectful of him to pawn off the debate as between the ideals of Freedom Lovers and Moral Relativists. Its that sort of BS that makes you want to completely give up on the concept of debate and high words and the the search for a better common ground, and just try to destroy the man with as much mud and political force as can be mustered. To throw out such a shoddy straw-man after saying everything he did about the need for people to speak their minds in open dialog...honestly it makes me want to throw up. Its just sickening. I don't want him to think one way or another about the war, but he should be at least honest when framing what the debate is about. EDIT: Pangloss, after reading the speech in the link itself, I see the quotes have a lot of missing context. The portion about Relativism is about genocide in Dufar, not the Iraq War. I still don't have any idea who thinks Relativism is good, and who he's talking about that holds it as such, but I am quite glad to see he wasn't talking about the Iraq War.

Kicking anyone that's down is in poor taste, staff or not. Celebrating the fact we are all effectively space mold clinging to some little rock doing crazy and at times foolishly laughable stuff... should all be fair game all round, imo.