Cap'n Refsmmat

(Emphasis mine) But yes, blockades are legal in International Waters. Section III Article 47 lists certain vessels as exempt from attack including; So you could claim exemption under this rule except that Section 48 says that the exemption doesn't apply if; (Emphasis mine) BY failing to stop when ordered, the flotilla lost exemption. Section V which pertains to merchant vessels states; (Emphasis mine) Again, International Law favours the Israelis. I think you're taking the law out of context. First of all, this bit: I don't think Turkey and Israel are in armed conflict, and I don't think the humanitarian fleet were "naval forces." This implies to me the situation of a merchant ship sitting between two battleship, not a battleship attacking a merchant ship. Indeed, although here you're conceding that Turkey is a neutral state, and Israel and Turkish vessels aren't in armed conflict. But in the end, the protesters are arguing this clause: Smuggling tunnels through the Egyptian border let Hamas bring in whatever it wants. The blockade is merely succeeding in ruining the economy of Gaza. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/its-up-to-us-to-lift-the-blockade-1988693.html

I have this to add: Err. You mean, the people of Gaza can have basic construction materials, such as cement and rebar, when they stop letting their neighbors fire rockets? Anyway, I have to agree with this columnist from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/-1988684.html Another article from the perspective of those on board, rather than the IDF: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/flotilla-attack-first-the-shots-then-the-ship-was-turned-into-a-lake-of-blood-1988972.html

A literary answer:

They should have responded that the women's group was discriminating against transvestites.

The tension in a taught string is provided by the forces on the ends of the string pulling outwards. In this case, that'd be the mass hanging, and the force the tripod applies on the string to hold it up.

It would be helpful if you were to explain why it is wrong. Just shouting "IT'S WRONG!" is obnoxious and unhelpful. Anyway, if [math]|a| > |b|[/math] and [math]-ab>0[/math], a or b must be opposite in sign. If we take the expression I was showing, [math]-ab < a^2[/math] and divide through by a, [math]-b< a[/math] we can see this is equivalent to my condition, [math]|a| > |b|[/math]. And since [math]a^2 < -ab[/math], [math]a^2 + b^2 \geq -ab[math], since [math]b^2\geq 0[/math].

For case 3, let [math]|a| > |b|[/math]. [math]-ab < a^2[/math], correct? Both are positive, and [math]|b| < |a|[/math], so it must be true. You can do it likewise for [math]|b| > |a|[/math], and [math]|b|=|a|[/math] is trivial. This should let you complete the proof.

No. I want to see you try it. First try it for the case where a and b are both greater than 0. That should be trivial.

Believe me, I've been following this discussion from the beginning. D H is trying to get you to work this out for yourself. Clearly you don't want to. I have done the proof myself and it's fairly trivial. Here's the first few steps: [math](a+b)^2 =a^2 + 2ab + b^2[/math] So we're asserting that [math]a^2 + 2ab + b^2 \geq ab[/math] Subtracting, [math]a^2 +b^2 \geq -ab[/math] And I think you'll find that easy to prove. Go on, try it, show us where you get. edit: I now realize that what doing is probably far different than D H's method for proving the inequality. Oh well; there's many ways to get to the same solution.

Perhaps your dedication to learning mathematics should be redirected to mastering your English? D H is not proving [math]a^2+ab+b^2\geq 0[/math]. He is stating that it is equivalent to [math](a+b)^2\geq ab[/math]. If you prove the latter, you have proven the former. Try proving the latter.

And unfortunately, there's no Masoretic Text for the New Testament. The earliest surviving documents date from decades or centuries after the originals were written, and many differ in details. There's no one agreed-upon version of the New Testament in Greek and Aramaic. If you pick one text and try to read it in the original language, you will miss out on centuries of Biblical analysis and translation, whereby Biblical scholars try to figure out what the original text said and what parts were added in later. My NRSV has frequent footnotes saying "other ancient authorities add ...." in the New Testament. If you want to read the New Testament in its original language, you have to be willing to spend a lot of time learning about it and replicating the work of many others.

mooeypoo speaks primarily from the Old Testament, which is mostly Hebrew. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Indeed. But I think we can agree that Jesus would advocate nonviolent means whenever possible.

I see. But that's not self-defense, just killing in battle, even offensively. My concordance leads me to Matthew 5:21, where Jesus says: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-26&version=NIV And then, of course, there's Matthew 5:38-48, which includes this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=NIV The New Testament is rather clear on the issue.

Yes, you'd have to use the RMS value of the voltage. I think that should work. My experience with AC has been a few weeks of class a month or two ago, so I might be wrong, of course.

If your wire does not have any inductance or capacitance (if it's regular copper wire, it likely has negligible amounts), the equations behave the same way. However, since the voltage varies with time, you'll get an average power. I'm not entirely sure about that, though.

My NRSV translation says "murder," as well as the NIV. The NRSV notes that "kill" is an alternate translation, but the Oxford Annotated Bible's footnotes add that "murder" is the correct way to do it. It's probably the old King James Version that's perpetuating the "thou shalt not kill" version. Fortunately the NIV and the NLT have overtaken the KJV in popularity, and they're both right. Go Biblical scholarship. I dunno. Does the Bible ever make the self-defense distinction? Is it murder if it's self-defense? Jesus's preaching would seem to indicate that you should not fight back, but I'm not entirely sure. Seeing as Jesus's home was never invaded by a serial rapist with a machete, we unfortunately don't know his direct opinion on the matter.

That's not what DrDNA was responding to. DrDNA was responding to your claim that a good God would intervene to prevent bad things from happening. The question of why innocent people suffer when an omnibenevolent God exists really is the problem of evil, and we've discussed it before: [thread]49436[/thread] In that thread I present a few solutions to the problem that work fairly well, I'd think. If you want to revive the thread I can go into more detail about the solutions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged One theological response to the problem of evil (that is, the problem of why innocent people suffer disproportionately) is that any sin against an infinite God is infinitely bad, so everyone deserves to suffer. Everyone's equal. In any case, the New Testament preaches that nobody is perfect in God's eyes. That's why Jesus died on the cross.

I don't think either matters. The national debt isn't important; since banks multiply money by loaning it out, there'll naturally be more money in the money supply than there is actual gold. By the same token, there's more GDP than there is actual currency, so having less gold than GDP is not a problem. What matters is having more currency than gold altogether. If there's not $829b of gold around, you can't back the dollar with gold.

Money is reused. There's only $829b in circulation as of 2008: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

Ah. Yes, I dunno about the constitutionality of demanding a vote. On the other hand, Congress can pass rules of procedure for how bills are debated and voted upon in Congress, and presumably they have the authority to legislate those rules in a bill. We'll see. I'm sure someone who gets their funding cut would sue, and the issue would be settled then.

Spambots aren't illegal (well, I dunno what the CAN-SPAM act covers), but most ISPs and hosting companies won't tolerate them regardless. And often the links they post are to sites doing semi-legal things; we get a lot of pharmaceutical spam, and I'm certain that some of the links lead to malware. Aha. It's probably what I suspected. Well, I'm going to have to try something clever.

Business owners are just consumers who pass on what they consume.

MS = Master of Science MBA = Master of Business Administration We don't do the British MPhys or MEng-style degrees here. Well, at least commonly.

This is not the traditional theological view. As C S Lewis says, drawing on earlier work by Thomas Aquinas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Scholastic_definition Aquinas has this to say: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25A3THEP1 That is to say, many words and phrases refer to some sort of abstract "object" or "action." If I say "cat," you have an abstract mental representation of cat in your mind that my word corresponds to. If I say "making a burrito," you have a mental representation of making a burrito. But there is no representation for "making a burrito that is not a burrito." That does not describe an abstract action, or any action at all; it is a meaningless bunch of words. Similarly, you could make an analogy to indeterminate forms. 00, [math]\infty \times 0[/math], and [imath]\frac{0}{0}[/imath] don't represent any particular value, like 1 or 7. They're indeterminate; without further information, they mean nothing.

How would that pay off our debts?