mooeypoo

troubles

You're right, I didn't mean training as a personal "goal" i meant that no one can control and know how to TRUELY use the gun without training.. and that a shooting range doesn't qualify as training. Other than SOLDIERS, then, who would need guns, and WHY?

Yeah I thought about it but if anyone would be smart enough to get to my php source, he wouldnt have troubles going to the other page, as you said I just made another server handle username that allows only reading, so that even if anyone takes it - he's not the administrator of the Database

The coffee you buy in stores today is not real coffee anyways, it's going through so many chemical procedures. So another one won't matter that much. And if you want REAL coffee, accept the teeth staining. Otherwise - go for it, the coffee is so chemical as it is, it might just work to take that compound out. BTW - I have no idea what's causing it but I can give you the drawing of a caffeine molecule if it'll help .. I have it fom some gift someone gave me a while ago to show me I'm a geek. Speaking of which - the sun is up, time for me to go to bed ~moo

How can that be a rule, I don't get it. In israel the state is not 100% seperated from religion, so in order to get married you MUST marry in a religious form. But the usa should (err correct me if I'm wrong?) be democratic and religion-seperated from the state so WHY would this rule be anything *but* descriminating? ~moo

Awsome. You can count me in, I'll be your liaison in Israel or.. something... hehe

Eugh I hated those "reading times" - every time I got to a good part in the book the 20 minutes ended.

Anyone has any idea what that system can do anyways or is it all just speculations from sci-fi movies? (have no idea, I only saw it in sci fi movies that's why I'm asking )

Okay, could any please explain to me WHY WOULD A PERSON *need* - and I stress NEED, not want - a gun? Mark: "defending myself" doesn't apply since TEAR GAS defends without killing, so does fenses, alarms and improving the judgitial (sp?) system. Take into acount we're talking about people who have NO TRAINING in guns. Going once a year (even once a month) to a shooting range is NOT training. ~moo

I'm actually just reading Hawking's books. About time I'll read 'em. But I'm also in the middle of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - the fifth (and last) book. Both of them are awsome.

I don't believe in the aliens such conspiracy-theorists believe in, so I'd say definately not. I disagree about the leak though. There *are* ways to prevent this from leaking, and theoretically, if those things are true, then the leaks you see are those tabloids publications and the people speaking about abductions and so on. I mean, c'mon man, listen to scully and mulder!! ~moo

Ancient

You are being evolved today just like your kids will evolve and your grandparents have evolved. Evolution takes time, but it HAPPENS. The fact you don't notice it at the PERCISE moment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. *You* are evolving. In relation to your environment, otherwise you'd not have lived. By the way, I always thought creationism is more than "god created men" -- it's the genesis story of god creating the universe in seven days and so on. If that's creationism, it doesn't fit evolution at all. I might be taking creationism wrong here. About religion's DEBATE: Be surprise, but I've debated with many people about religion, but those debates were scientifical in basis, although most of the people were religious -- which means that tehy gave me non-tautological answers to my questions. Those debates have evolved to phylosophical debates that were EXTREMELY benefitial to both sides and really really interresting. They required both sides to NOT base itself on tautological axioms. Since religion has a HUGE problem with not being relied on tautology (since it's mostly tautological in it's essence) then there are not many religious people that can actually handle such a debate. I never argue about religion. I debate. If you "argue" about a religion then you probably do that with someone that won't listen to basic logic. Not *my* logic, but basic rules of logic of a DISCUSSION. Meaning - speaking with logical statements, that are built on logical axioms and so on. I've been given many ideas and phylosophies about god, religion, faith and belief in relations to science and in a non tautological way. So debating a religion is possible, it just requires different tools. ~moo

It sounds like your theory is SO GENERAL that it can't be broken, not because it's true but because it's half tautological. I still didn't get how it affects anything we already know by the way. And yes, I know schrodinger's kittens and I've read your theory.. If you can just tell me one thing in our undestanding of the world that has CHANGED because of your theory, it might help me get the point better.

I think the main issue about guns is not "how much power should be allowed to obtain" with each gun, but more "How far is one man to take law into his own hands" You want to defend yourselves, put better alarms, use pepperspray and make sure the police is doing its jobs. If you carry a gun, you are going to kill. If you fired and you DIDNT kill, it was an accident. Guns are for KILLING. Even the most trained in gun usage will have troubles ONLY WOUNDING a person by firing a gun. so the "drastic" part in my opinion is not to ban guns, it's to ALLOW guns. ~moo

I didn't see NASA's dramatic declaration (I just know there should have been one today) but the fact that there is water on mars doesn't necessarily say it had life, it says it CAN sustain *our definition of life* or in a simpler version - life that migth resemble life on earth. I never denied the possibiltiy of life on mars, actually, this finding just means that the life on mars might resemble life on earth. Great finding btw. ~moo

Yeah I got that,I'm sorry about the phrasing, it was late at night and I (appearantly) didn't phrase myself right. You're right, it wasn't my intentions though.

Let's stop assuming what I know and don't know, and stop avoiding the responsability of trying to prove your wn theory, and just give some REASONS. Trust me, my friend,if there's anything I don't understand I'll ask you. Or look for it myself. Don't assume. Prove. ~moo

Your theory is an entire book? Okay, well, see, I can't start believing a theory that makes no sense - and yours AT THIS POINT makes little sense. It has some basic logic but it melts when you reach the "whats it all have to do with our day to day life". If you can't supply *any* kind of information then your theory is invalid. At least for me. ~moo

Maybe you are not explaining yourself right. I asked for explanations about the theory, and why we should believe yours over others that quite frankly, explain the theory of light PRETTY GOOD. And I am aware of it, thankyou. Please explain your theory, the burdain of proof is STILL on your shuolders, not mine. You're the one who threw the idea to the air, convince us t's the truth. ~moo

Maybe we were created yesterday by a god that wanted us to have lifetime of memories so we won't suspect his almighty plan. Maybe. Maybe, but it gives you NOTHING other than the frustrating notion you're helpless. If that's the case, then you have nothing to TRY and understand because you have no way of knowing anything. That's... sad. ~moo

I said i'll look it up, I didn't say i'm going to thrash the person because what you said, give me a TINSY BIT of credit here. I also said that *if he does have anything to do with creationism* (stress the IF HE DOES part) i don't need to REALLY look it up -- I meant I can just know how valid his "scientific" opinions are. and Hades - I don't really see what oyu mean here. If god created hiumanity with the option to evolve (which is a fair statement) it's copmletely irrelevant, because it gives me only the tautological answer of "because thats what happened, BECAUSE!!" and nothing more. If god really created humanity and then "left it alone" to see what happens, you can also call him The Big Bang and explain it by using scientifical thinking. ~moo

Sounds interresting and I'll have to think about it further before I post my response about it. HOWEVER about your last paragraph: 1. It's actually my opinion that the truth is less important than the WAY we get it. We won't find an ultimate truth anyways because we atre too small and undeveloped to grasp it - only by TRYING to find it, we achieve progress. 2. Of course science is important. If it wasn't, I could just tell you the red phunky elephant in the bottom of the sea invented the world while eating cheerios. It's the ultimate truth, and science means less. If you SAY SOMETHING, then you need to be prepared to prove it otherwise it's completely invalid. Taht said - I don't throw your theory away completely YET, I need to think about it first, but i WOULD appreciate more details on how you came to that conclution that this is the truth, what more information it gives me and why I should actually believe ni your theory than in any other. You thrown an idea to the air, it's a nice one, very imaginative. You now should show us why we should think about that idea seriously over other existing theories of the universe, otherwise it stays just that - an imaginative idea. ~moo

Yeh, I will transfer myself to the other topic to answer that theory ~moo

uhhh.. yes, I do, but what does that have to do with gravitational force? (other than perhaps the one from the moon) I dont mean to disrespect your idea i just don't understand what you're saying.. please explain ~moo