zapatos

What do you mean when you say the degree to which our universe is 'fine tuned' is empirical? I understand that, say, gravity is measured to be consistent, but what is the 'fine tuned' part? That sounds like you are saying we can measure that someone tuned, or adjusted, the universe from one state to another.

<snarky comment removed>

You seem to misunderstand the situation here. The risk is not that you may quit talking to us and that we will be deprived of what you have to say. The risk is that the people on this site will quit talking to you and you will be deprived of what they have to say.

Sorry but I must have missed it. In what way has MigL misrepresented Latinos and the big deal in the South? I was under the impression that MigL was just saying that there is a difference between how legal Latinos and illegal Latinos are treated in this country.

MigL stated very clearly that "some of" the disparity in black versus white injuries has to do with the response of how blacks "have been" treated by the law. He said nothing about blacks being 'too sensitive'; that is your attempt to color his comment to help support your argument. He in fact made it clear that blacks have been treated poorly. You on the other hand are making it clear that you believe no blacks would have responded to this mistreatment by acting in a hostile or aggressive manner. In fact you are indicating that blacks refusing to be mistreated by the police is somehow a blight on their character since you stated that the idea of fighting back against oppression denigrates them. As far as support for his assertion that blacks are indeed fighting back against this oppression, I think we have to look no further than the riots in Ferguson. As much as I despise the pithy little conservative 'bumper sticker' sound bites, one thing I do agree with them on is that it has become very difficult in this country to discuss race without being painted as a racist by liberals. The fact of the matter is that blacks have all kinds personalities, just as whites do. And it is not much of a stretch to imagine that if a group of people is oppressed by the law, that 'some of' them may push back and suffer the consequences.

I think the obvious bias here is yours. Disregarding a possibility as 'flawed' and 'ugly' without evidence is hardly scientific. iNow's chart says nothing about causation, and possibilities should not be dismissed without reason.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Why do scientists who accept "Man-made Global Warming" dislike losing face any more than scientists who have accepted any other theory?

I was guessing it was a parable he wrote. Just curious but how do you know it was computer generated? Do computer generated stories exhibit certain characteristics?

I often dream about real things. And those things have names. Even some of the things that are not real have names. Regardless, I doubt it was a dream.

What was the name of the church?

I don't think you can equate 'an entity governing our scientific advancement' with being 'opposed to science'. Just the opposite in fact. I would suggest that entities governing our scientific advancement are supportive of science. Unless of course the 'entity governing our scientific advancement' you are referring to is on par with religion. In which case I would have to disagree with you for other reasons. Why do you think we will destroy ourselves without something opposed to science? Have we diverted any disasters in the past due to opposition to science?

Periodically when my son is out and about, I ask him to stop by the store to pick up a few things for me. Instead of texting him the list of items I need, I write it all down on a piece of paper, then take a picture of the paper and send the picture to him. Drives him nuts. So even though I use the technology, I integrate it with pen and paper.

Forgive me for being so dense here but just for clarity, you are saying that NO, we did not have as one of our goals in the region the winning of any battles. Correct?

You didn't answer my question. Let me try again. Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles? I assume the motive for 9/11 was what bin Laden said it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks You'll have to be more specific. More or less successful in what respect? Yes, that seems likely. Although you have gone is completely the opposite direction than Ten oz is going with it. He seems to be saying that Shock and Awe should have been part of the strategy to accomplish our overall, strategic level objective in the region.

Wasn't one of our goals in the region to win battles? Didn't Shock and Awe assist? What is it exactly that you think Shock and Awe was intended to do besides help win battles?

I am not suggesting that the long term result of a victory that involves intimidation is better than the long term result of a victory that does not involve intimidation. I am suggesting that intimidation can help you achieve that victory in the first place. In any case, how does your comment support your assertion that intimidation is childish? If Shock and Awe resulted in a quick taking of Baghdad and Saddam's regime, then I would suggest that Shock and Awe was the proper and militarily professional thing to do. Frankly I feel as if you are making my point for me. Kennedy didn't resort to a full scale invasion. Instead he went into full scale intimidation mode and it worked beautifully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

Everyone in war is angry as someone trying to kill you tends to be irritating. I don't see how we can avoid an enemy being angry short of unconditional surrender. Intimidation is a tool, just like bombs and bullets. The purpose of intimidation is to help you win, not to help the enemy. As with any tool, it can be misused or have unintended consequences. I wouldn't say the use of bombs in war is childish just because it can make people angry. Why is intimidation any different? While it wasn't very successful, the purpose of 'Shock and Awe' in the Gulf War was in large part to intimidate and possibly result in an early victory. During WWII many in the US argued for a demonstration of the Atomic Bomb in hopes of an early surrender.

Intimidation as a foreign policy may be childish in some circumstances but I think it is unreasonable to rule it out in others. Was it childish to use intimidation against the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Was it childish for the Brits to attempt intimidation as they sailed toward the Falklands? Intimidation can just as easily keep you out of war as it can get you in war. And if we are dealing with an enemy who wants to take the fight to us, I am not really very concerned about whether or not it makes him 'angry'.

Can you explain that please? 'Deterministic' and 'probability of an event happening' seem to be at odds with each other.

Canadian?!?! Well, that explains it... No offense taken of course. How Missouri is categorized really doesn't mean much of anything at all. I was just clarifying a small detail.

"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." -Stephen Hawking

More dirty laundry coming out. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/justin-cosma-ferguson-police_n_5705409.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I've seen Missouri identified a couple of times in this thread as being part of the South. Missouri is actually considered part of the Midwest. During the civil war they were a border state, supplying men to both the North and the South. I don't know anyone from Missouri who considers themselves part of the South.

I couldn't agree more. This should not be an 'us versus them' type of thing. The police are 'us' too, and they are there (or should be there) FOR us. What is particularly galling to me is that those who seem quickest to want to 'fight back' against the government, and argue that we need guns to protect ourselves against the government, are often the same people who have a knee-jerk reaction to support the police against the 'thugs' who were shot or are protesting. These same people showed up with guns to support Cliven Bundy but are no where to be seen for Michael Brown. The racism is apparent. The overt racism in this country has always been obvious to me, but being a white male I often miss out on seeing the more subtle forms of racism. It is only because of my wife's job that I have gotten a much better view of what blacks and minorities have to deal with in recent years. My wife works at a hospital in St. Louis whose patients are primarily minorities. The hospital puts a great deal of emphasis on employing minorities in the belief that it is good for their patients to see health care workers who look like them. Because of the hospital's emphasis on diversity, my wife is involved in a large number of activities aimed at making its employees understand each other. One particular exercise she went through on an offsite function, was to line up about 50 participants on a 'starting line'. The facilitator then read off a series of factors that the participants might have experienced growing up, and that each time a factor was read off that applied to a participant, that participant was to take one step forward toward the 'finish line of success'. The factors were those things that have been proven to increase the likelihood of success in life, such as access to healthcare, etc. My wife said that when the first person crossed the finish line (a white male) the visual made a compelling point, with while males leading the pack, while females behind them, and people of color far in the rear.