mooeypoo

I have two points to make specifically about the borders: 1. Why is Israel the only one to "blame" about the open borders? Gaza shares a border with Egypt, too. 2. Open borders in Gaza means open border *into* Israel. Just like any other country, doesn't Israel deserve the right to keep its own borders closed, and decide who passes into its territory? Won't it be the same as Mexico demanding the international community make sure that it's northern border be open? That demand doesn't affect just Mexico, it means that everyone can get *into the US*... Seeing as the border with Gaza *was* open for a long time before Hamas came to power, and was closed only when suicide bombers tried to pass though it (or, sadly, after such suicide bombers succeeded to pass through it and into Israel), I don't think it's very surprising Israel is being very reluctant in opening its borders to Gaza. Perhaps Gaza should demand this "open border" policy from Egypt..

1. Where's the proof that there actually were 100,000 people who actually saw this? 2. If such an event happened, it would be much more than 100,000 people who'd notice it. It would've been a worldwide event. One that is impossible to hide, not matter how strong government conspiracy is. 3. Can you direct us to where the test results of those independent facilities are posted/exist? If they're independent, and they're corroborated, then I would love to read these and see what method they've used and what exactly they've found. And.. uhh.. what/who are you quoting?

Breaking news - Israel Declares Unilateral Gaza Cease-Fire. Should that put to rest the idea that Israel has entered Gaza solely to control Gaza? ((ah, Pangloss, you're ahead of me.. )) in any case, I think the "magic word" here is "Unilateral".

Please summarize your theory in this thread, and don't send us to an external site. Specifically when this external site is half russian and contains nothing but an incomprehensible list. ~moo

Well, it's worth a try, I guess. Any ideas what the type of rules that could be used to achieve this, though? it's such a vast phenomena...

Well, in that case it won't simulate reality, it will just be used to find a working hypothetical model. That's not a bad method, but I thought the goal was to use this model to reach conclusions about our *real* universe.. how can we do that if the computer operates on various, not-necessarily realistic, rules? Two problems here: 1. I don't see how we can do the equivalent with the universe, or how we can feed all the details in.. we can plug in the known variables, and try to see how the computer can help us get on a certain track, maybe, but it won't necessarily conclude the right answer if we don't have *all* the info in, that was my point. 2. That isn't a simulation of the universe or of any entities, it's an attempt to analyze what we already have mathematically.

... when you write "log" with no base, it's as if the base is e, isn't it? In his case the base isn't e, it's a number. It seemed to me to be important.. I might be going ahead of myself here, though, in which case, I apologize. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOH *SHOOT!* I missed the part where you translated the "base of" the log to log divided by log.. I actually missed my own advice! ha! You're absolutely right, I apologize, the answer's correct as is. Sorry, CrazCo.

What is the base of your logs? Remember, [math]x = b^y[/math] means that [math]y = \log _b{x}[/math] and check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm#Change_of_base but you're definitely on the right track!

Do you know about logarithms? I don't want to expose the answer straight-out, but you might want to read a bit about them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logarithm.html are good sources to get you started.

The interesting part is also that the Nazis were the "weak" side, with many many many more casualties. By far. In fact, you might find this article from the Huffington Post interesting: Dateline: January 3rd 1944 Fury continues to mount worldwide about the senseless loss of civilian life in Germany caused by England's callous bombing of German cities including Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. As of today many innocent German women and children have died in these utterly brutal bombing missions. And now there are ground offensives starting on mainland Europe. The English have claimed that they are merely retaliating against the V-1 flying bombs being launched indiscriminately by Nazis at their civilian population in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Coventry and other cities. The English point out that their enemy is sworn to its utter destruction and has used the missiles and flying bombs against its civilians without any regard to English loss of life. Moreover it makes the case that their own bombing missions are specifically directed to military targets that the German army has intentionally planted in the heart of civilian populations to try and deter English counter-attacks. (read more here)

Obervable can be something that is not visible for the naked eye (even with the help of a telescope) but *is* visible when we apply a filter, like, for instance, in X-Rays or Gamma Rays, etc. You won't see it in space with a telescope, but if you set your equipment to intercept Gamma Rays, X Rays or Infra Red, etc, suddenly you'll see it on your monitor.. Does that help?

BTW, that is the point -- my initial question wasn't a "ha ha I'll get you grandpa!" .. it was a true question, which I wanted clarification over. If he only took the second to explain himself - or just post the link you did, and tell me he didn't mean the *UNIVERSE* but a "limited" universe, the entire thing would've been solved right there, probably with a thank you from me. He mentioned universe, he mentioned modelling, and he was arguing that he doesn't need to know the "how" of the system.. I am not a model-builder, but I am a hobbyist-programmer, and I was truly wondering how could anyone do any accurate-modelling of anything wtihout having a set of rules.

That might be, but I don't understand how can a simulation be consistent with reality (hence, how could you effectively simulate reality..) if you don't know how that system *operates* in reality, or what makes it tick..? Isn't that the entire point of, say, the weather system? (as it was pointed out earlier) -- the fact that we can't accurately predict the weather has to do with the fact we don't have the full set of rules that govern that system, or what the reactions and interactions within it are.. so how can we take such simulation with something even bigger and a lot more complex (the universe) or even with something unknown and unspecified ("the entities") ? I might be missing something here, but I'd appreciate being pointed out what exactly I am missing, if I am.. ? ~moo

grandpa, you're talking about creating a model of a system. Whatever system it is, it doesn't matter; my question is how you plan to build this model if you don't know how the system operates or reacts. Neither posts answered my question. In your post in the other forum, you again speak of creating a model. I'm asking you how you will go about creating such model. If you think I misunderstand your answers, then perhaps you should help me out here and post *clear* answers, and not just single-line retorts that don't help the argument. I am not here to listen to a lecture, I'm asking a question which you seem to have a hard time explaining. Instead of accusing me of having an intention to argue, I urge you to read my question and think about it. I have yet to recieve an answer, and it is a valid question. If you think it isn't, then please explain *why* it's not valid with a bit more than a slightly-disrespectful one-liner. ~moo

Yeah, you did: After which I have asked you more than four times to answer how you would go about simulating a universe (which you mentioned in the above post) or such entities, or any sort of system you don't know the fundamental nature of, in a computer, or at all. Stop beating around the bush. I am asking a question, and you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid giving me an answer.

For the sake of fairness (and legality) of copyright, please be advised that these paragraphs are taken almost exclusively from this source: http://www.meign.com/chinese/CoalLiquefaction.htm Please avoid plagiarism.

Yes, and then you spoke about the universe, and then went back to "entities". My question still stands. You don't know how to define those "entities" properly, it seems. So my original question holds: Show me an example of which rules you would "feed" a computer in order to simulate a system when you don't know how the system works or how it interacts with outside influences. Grandpa, this is a discussion, not a lecture on your part. I am asking a valid question, which you seem to be avoiding a proper answer for about 3-4 posts. ~moo

okay, then show me how? What type of rules would you put into a computer that it would simulate the universe? If you don't know what the rules that make our universe work are, then you can't put in empirical logical rules. I'm not sure how you would get a computer to simulate any system this way, let alone simulate it in a way that will be useful in analyzing any type of conclusion out of. Give me an example of a set of rules, maybe that will make me understand how this can be done?

Does't that make it philosophical, though? Not that I have anything against philosophy, I think it's very interesting - I'm just wondering how you would go about simulating a philosophical concept.. A computer is logical - input/analysis/output. The analysis needs to go about according to some rules (otherwise how would the computer analyze?) - and if you're speaking strictly philosophically, then how would you define the rules of analysis that the computer can handle?

Great! finally we're making progress An experiment/test/survey is, at least, better than just claiming out of personal experience. Of course, the better thing would be to try and devise it a bit more accurate and with less chances for subjectivity, like making sure multiple countries are taken into account (perhaps this "phenomena" is social rather than biological?) and the actual "survey" should be done in a way as to get the best answers.. some women probably remember the number of "crappy relationships" unobjectively. Probably some men too but yeah, if the thought is that this is gender-difference -- social or biological (and it seemed like the OP claimed it was biological difference) -- we should be able to gather data and check this empirically. As much as sociology is empirical Not necessarily, actually. As was pointed out in the thread before, it might be in the best interest of those creeps to pretend to be nice, and then move on to the next "victim"; in which case the women will define these as "creeps" even though they might not have hooked up with them if they knew in advance. That would be interested to check. First we will have to make sure we define "dangerous" and "bad boys" properly. Is a boy with tattoos on his body "bad boy"? how 'bout a biker? Perhaps, and perhaps not.. even the definitions itself seems to be social in nature.. Well, this I am not sure of, but it's an interesting analysis. Adding a way in the test to actually test for these would probably result in *VERY* interesting information to analyze. ~moo

north, you are in a science forums. The original poster was required to post proof for his claims. So are you. Empty claims without proof are irrelevant. I am not sure I know what you mean. Regardless, you seem to be suggesting - again - a gender difference here. In which case, you are in need to supply PROOF. PROVE IT. Your surprised comments or baseless attempts at personal-incredulity are not enough. If you think there is a gender difference, it should be possible to demonstrate such difference scientifically. Since you are not in a mythology forum, but rather a science forum, you are [acr=by the rules of the forum]required[/acr] to supply such proofs.

What do you mean? If you're classifying something as "with women" or "with men" then you suggest there's a gender difference. I am not sure there is in these things. And it should be *proven* that there is, since it doesn't seem to be related to hormones or genes.

Only in the movies, really. If I take this forum as example, there are quite a large majority of men who fit your category, it seems, right here. If I take my school as an example, there are too. So does my work. So does the bar I keep going to with my friend, occasionally (not quite my kind 'o bar). I think the above judgement is a bit unfounded, tbh. It's a misconception, in my opinion, to claim that most guys are not nice, intimate, secure, loving, etc, and it has nothing to do with gender. There are lots of women who are *FAR* from being that (or looking for that), either. The only thing this has to do with gender is what it "seems like", and "seems like" has never been a good scientific measure.

Err, I didn't mean to corner anyone, as I mentioned in my rather long post above. I apologize if it seemed so. With due respect, though, I did get the feeling there's a bit of "quick-judgment" on his part towards Israel -- which, I guess, is understandable, due to it being the obvious stronger part. And yet, this is why this discussion was (and hopefully continues to be) interesting. Debating with people you agree with isn't very interesting.

OMg. I wrote a full page answer and my browser just crashed.. (which is really a shame, 'cause I was *totally* convincing... jk) Okay, let me try again. I know you don't mean to step on any toes, and I don't mean to make it sound as if I think you do.. (if that makes any sense). I don't claim to be objective, though I try to be as much as I can, and I don't claim to have the best solutions. In fact, I don't have any solutions, which is what makes me so frustrated. I am trying in this discussion to separate myself from the State of Israel, and if you notice, I keep phrasing myself as "Israel is" instead of "we are", for two main reasons: 1. I don't agree with everything my country is doing. 2. I am trying to be as objective as I can, knowing that I can't really be 100% objective. But this situation is VERY frustrating to me, which is why I am so curious as to trying to figure out possible solutions. I have friends who were drafted for this conflict, and if I weren't in NYC at the moment, I probably would have too (though not to the front). If - at any point in this conversation - I make it sound like I "like" this situation, bash me over the head with a shoe and I'll rephrase myself better, because I *don't* like this situation. I'm scared, I'm frustrated, and I'm very very annoyed with the fact that civilians die on BOTH sides. But that's my point. It takes more than one side to create such a mess. The really sad thing about these conflicts is that they are usually started by an extreme minority. The problem with such extreme minorities is that they're vocal, so they don't SEEM like theyre the minority, and they do a lot of trouble. When the extreme-right in Israel hijacks a hill in the middle of *PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES* for the purpose of having a "bargaining chip" in future peace talks, I get angry. I get angry because they ruin it for *ME*, who risked my life and lost friends to make *THEM* safe from the minorities of the other side, so *someone* is left to do the talking. I did this for *PEACE*, while they seem to do this for land. I get utterly pissed off. I also think that in the past 20 years we've been completely neglecting Gaza. That's not to say we have made them an "open air prison" like some extremists *outside of Israel and Palestine* say, but we should have done more to encourage them in building their own state. I *want* the palestinians to have their own state. I want them to have a THRIVING state, because that would mean chances for peace. I am willing to support the creation of that state with my tax money, and I am willing to put effort and resources into encouraging them to transform into a productive and peace-loving society. Because I want *PEACE*. I don't want to lose any more friends to bus bombings, or restaurant explosions, or random shooting. I don't want war, and I don't want conflict, and I don't want to rule over another society; there's no point to it, it doesn't give me any pleasure, and I don't give a rat's ass about any special pieces of land. I am willing to give htem land. *But* Hamas is no longer a "small extreme terrorist organization". It's part of the palestinian government, which means that *talks* are no longer possible. They claim - loud and clear - that Israel should be obliterated. that makes me more frustrated than you could ever imagine. Because that means that the chance for peace is down the drain. I see my country with all its flaws, but I also see the situation as it is. Israel has been continously bombarded by Hamas. During the cease fire, Israel was still bombarded. Intel says Hamas, but even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter, because Israel did not respond against Hamas, it responded against the militants who fired the rockets. The people of Southern Israel has been blaming the government for doing nothing for them for 7 years already; their economy is practically nonexistent, because they live in bomb shelters and safe-rooms, their kids go on-and-off to school, and when they come back home their sole thought is which way they should choose that includes a safe place they can get into within 15 seconds. Israel didn't respond even after Hamas declared the cease fire is over - in November. It took Israel three more months of rockets to respond back, and by that time, it was either *FINISH THE ROCKET ATTACKS* or don't do anything. "Dont do anything" *obviously* didn't work. Israel has tried that for the entire duration Hamas was in power, and after Israel *one-sidedly* evacuated the Gaza strip from the settlments there. My sister was one of the soldiers who helped evacuate the Gaza strip from Israeli citizens. Those people - most of them right-wing - were NOT about to be kicked out nicely. They cursed, they kicked, they screamed, they called the soldiers names I will not repeat here. And yet the government did this, and I - along with a very large part of my fellow citizens - felt HOPE finally, because *FINALLY* we might have peace. And then Hamas went into the evacuated zone, and started shooting rockets from there, getting closer to the border. .. what do you do? Nothing? It seems like whatever Israel does, it's being scorned in the world. So, at some point, your decision stops being about what the world will say, and starts being about how to make sure your own citizens are SAFE. Can you imagine living under constant rocket bombardment for 7 years? Your own government is stalling and stalling its reaction so that we have attempts for talks, and more attempts for talks, and get Germany into trying to attempt talks, and all this time these cities in southern Israel are being attacked. It doesn't matter who shot those rockets during the cease fire, because it wasn't the end of the cease fire that's in question here. The current operation started 2 months AFTER the end of the cease fire. And the cease fire ended not because Israel engaged Hamas, but because Israel engaged 6 *ARMED MILITANTS* that were smuggling arms and planning shooting rockets. The fact Hamas took them later as his martyrs just means they took responsibility for these specific attacks, apparently. Why are you so concerned with those three months? Let's say an extreme faction in Israel was constantly shooting rockets at Gaza -- do you think Israel would just "let it happen"? Whether or not Hamas took responsibility is irrelevant; Israel's *only response* was to prevent more rockets from hurting more of its civilians. If Hamas was so worried about keeping this cease fire, it could have ignored this incident - just like Israel is ignoring the incident in the Northern Border (with Lebanon), to avoid further escalation. But Hamas *wanted* an escalation, and the proof is its actions: Mortars and rockets that had THREE TIMES the range of the previous ones; which means that now the situation *escalated even further*. And yet Israel did not respond. For three months. Talks, attempts for talks, engaging europe to try and engage talks.. nothing. Just more and more rockets, further and further into Israel. Until Israel had enough. I *really* don't see the alternative here. Really. I don't see it as same, but I'll accept this. Give me a bit to look for the references and get back to you. I promise that if I find no adequate references, I'll take back my statement that it was Hamas who shot those rockets. To be honest, I don't think it's *that* relevant even if Hamas didn't take responsibility.. I am curious, though, of knowing who else do you think would've done it? Hang on, though, that's what bothers me here. It's NOT for decades. First off, Israel has been provoked for a VERY long time *WITHOUT* reaction. Israel only reacted NOW. After 8 years. I think that's meaningful. Second, the situation with Hamas is *not* the same situation that was with the PLO and the Intifada (with Arafat). So grouping those together is just unfair for *both* sides. And your question seems to be moot. Let's say it's not justified; what would have been justified? I still don't get your solution. If you say that a cease fire would've been justified, I completely agree -- but the POINT is that it *wasn't* a cease fire. Hamas used this cease fire to build arsenals of weapons and arm itself.. that's not a cease fire, even if we both accept the idea that someone else shot those rockets during that cease fire. So Israel shouldn't have responded with force. Okay. What should it have done? Israelis were being targetted - with increasingly advanced weaponary. Grad missiles are more accurate and go a lot further than Qassam missiles. They've hit a kindergarten (luckily after hours), a hospital, people's houses... What was the solution to this? Wait a minute. Israel signed agreements with the Palestinians, agreement that ever since Hamas came to power were COMPLETELY ignored. While I agree with you that both the Palestinians and Israel had their problems, I disagree that Hamas is to be described equally. It has declared it wants the destruction of ISrael, it REFUSES to talk, it ANNOUNCES it wants bloody murder of Israeli civilians.... Unlike other incidents which we may examine at another time, this one was one sided. How do you talk to someone who REFUSES to talk back? No. A peace talk is. If they were only willing.A cease fire is. If they werte only willing. A presence of UN/NATO forces in the GAZA strip to help their govt prevent those "who knows who shot them" rockets from the cease fire, would be better. If they were only willing. So.. they're unwilling to cooperate. They keep shooting. The solutions you suggest are patently unrealistic. What else should Israel have done, then? Well, in 2005, Israel decided that it leaves the Gaza strip as a sign of good will towards *peace talks*. That was *after* Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat in the early 1990s.So it seems like there is a will on the part of Israel (why would Israel give land away if it didn't think it will bring forth PEACE? or at the very least *TALKS*?) It takes two to tango. Show me ONE TIME where the Hamas did what Israel has done, and tried to talk *realistically* about peace. How do you expect Hamas to break this cycle -- or even to join Israel if Israel is the one who "breaks" the cycle, if Hamas exclaims it wants the *DESTRUCTION* of Israel?? ~moo