D H

Some of the talk in this thread about Iranians with guns is very stupid. Iranians are not Arabs. According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia's list of gun ownership by country, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership Country -- Guns per 100 residents United States -- 90.0 Yemen -- 61.0 Switzerland -- 46.0 Iraq -- 39.0 Serbia -- 37.5 ... <scroll down> ... United Kingdom -- 5.6 Iran -- 5.3 Last I read, Daily Kos is not a right-wing ideological network. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/21/17948/1073 That said, the lack of violence on the demonstrators part and the absolute thuggishness of the dictatorial regime has made it clear to people from many political leanings that this is not a legitimate regime. Use of guns by the demonstrators would have made legitimized the response. Forty days from now when the martyrs are mourned I predict another one-sided response. After that, the protestors are screwed because they have no guns.

Nonsense. Moderate votes boycotted the 2005 election in droves, leading to a low turnout in 2005. They didn't like the choices available to them in 2005. Moderates decided not to boycott the 2009 election and instead mobilized in droves. The turnout for this election was very high. Mousavi declared himself a winner before polls closed for a simple reason: Exit polls data showed him to be the clear winner. The Supreme Council declared Ahmadinejad a day before they could have possibly counted the paper ballots for a simple reason: Every election in Iran is rigged. Admittedly not such a nice guy. Have you ever had to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of evils? I see you are from Wales, so you don't get to vote for your Prime Minister. Suppose you did, but also suppose that Oliver Cromwell won the day. Rather than singing that Cromwell lay buried and dead, you would pay tribute to him -- and you would only be able to vote for candidates approved by the Lord Protector. (For those of you in the US, imagine that all Presidential candidates had to be approved by Pat Robertson.) Do you think you would be able to vote for someone who didn't stink?

You might want to start with American accents. The East coast is chock full of distinctive accents.

That is a non-tribute to the news organizations. There are other things happening in the world. Real heros have died and continue to die, possibly in large numbers, in a real tragedy in Iran. Real victims died in a real tragedy in Washington DC.

Your definition of theory: In short, you came here to troll and call people names. Pathetic.

Sorry for the confusion. From the east, not from the west. The trade winds blow west (southwest in the Northern Hemisphere, northwest in the Southern Hemisphere).

Per your axioms, there already exists one number, zero, that satisfies the above. Therefore the negation of the uniqueness is that there exists some x such that there exists some y that is not equal to zero such that x+y=x. And then we are stuck because your axioms do not define the concept of inequality.

It doesn't. You have a biased point of view because you live on the surface of the Earth and you live in California. Your point of view would be different if you lived aloft at extreme altitude or if you lived elsewhere on the surface of the Earth. Between roughly 30 south and 30 north latitude the surface winds are predominantly from the west. Google "trade winds" for more info.

No. That is the lay interpretation of the word. A scientific theory represents the pinnacle of scientific thinking. What cannot be done is to prove a theory to be true with no doubt whatsoever.

I share your opinion. A person's thinking obviously is a key distinguishing factor in deciding what kind of crime was committed. Killing someone without thinking at all can be negligent homicide, killing someone in a fit of rage is voluntary manslaughter, and killing someone after careful planning is first degree murder. I really do not like the idea of thinking like a criminal being a crime in and of itself. Can one person commit conspiracy? Delving into determining what constitutes the crime of terrorism as a crime is a bit too much like delving into the process of making sausage. One thing that is in the Patriot Act (section 401) is that a crime committed by a member of an officially-designated terrorist group is terrorism. Roeder did not commit terrorism in that sense because none of the wacko anti-abortion groups have been officially classified as a terrorist group (AFIAK). This could provide one justification for claiming that bias does exist. Members of right wing wacko groups have killed quite a few people in the last two decades. So why aren't they classified as terrorist organizations? The answer is politics. They are Americans; Al-Qaeda, a bunch of furriners. Home-grown terrorism was starting to get out-of-hand when Clinton was President. Clinton was a moderate. Obama, less so. If the home-grown right wing wackos persist down their path they are apparently following, I suspect some of the more virulent groups will be officially designated as terrorist organizations.

First things first: Yes, I was just plain rude. I apologize. "According to theosophy": Theosophy is *his* main thesis. See his home page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5. He has tons of ramblings on theosophy, whatever that is (his writing style is rather incoherent). Whatever theosophy is, it conflicts not only with geology but also evolution, modern medicine, cosmology, the standard model of physics, relativity, ... Just look at his home page and follow the links therein. He pulls out the standard crackpot set of weapons in his futile attempts to demolish geology, evolution, modern medicine, cosmology, the standard model of physics, relativity, ...: quotes out of context, misquotes, mischaracterizations, and fallacies galore, formal and informal. His credibility is not just seriously damaged. It is nonexistent. No, yes, and who knows, dealt with in reverse order: Who knows? A lot of his writing is incoherent rambling. It can be very hard to determine what he is saying. Yes. Every politician knows that one of the very best ways to lie is to tell the truth. Not the whole truth and nothing but the truth of course. The truth, carefully dealt out in small doses, can be used as a cover for some outragious lies. No. His central thesis, that the plate tectonics theory is utterly flawed, is wrong. So why then do you persist in posting straw men?[/quote']That is not a strawman. That most definitely is a straw man. Let's take it one bit at a time: "Ocean trenches were initially expected to contain thick, deformed sediment accumulated during millions of years of convergence." The ocean trenches were discovered prior to the development of plate tectonics theory. The prevailing view among geologists at that time was that the Earth was more-or-less unchanging. When oceanographers began sending submergibles into the ocean depths, they noticed a steady rain of debris falling from above. These primitive submergibles could reach parts of the ocean floor. What they saw in these initial excursions was a lot of sediment. It only stood to reason that the trenches, if they had been around unchanged for millions of years, should be at least partially filled with this sediment. So, right off the bat Pratt is creating a straw man. Plate tectonics theory never espoused that the trenches should be filled with sediment. "Instead, 44% of trenches are empty of sediments." This is not a straw man. It is instead using the truth to be downright dishonest. Pratt put these two sentences together to give the impression that plate tectonic theory cannot explain a widespread phenomenon. The truth is exactly the opposite. The discovery of the trenches and mid-oceanic ridges was the first indicator that something was wrong with the geologists' model of a steady-state Earth. The discovery that the trenches were not filled with sediment indicated that something was very, very wrong with that model. There was a lot of active geology going on at the mid-oceanic ridges and in the deep trenches. These observations and an explanation for them were exactly what motivated the development of plate tectonics theory. The observation that the trenches are not full of sediment is not only consistent with plate tectonics theory, it is in part responsible for the birth of plate tectonics theory.

First, get the dates right. It was 1866. The world is plagued with charlatans. They can be found in politics (Joe McCarthy), economics (Bernie Madoff), religion (Ken Hovind), and science (Ernst Haeckel). They can be found in any human endeavor. The existence of political charlatans does not invalidate the basic precepts of our political system. It does mean that we need to be vigilant against being drawn to them. That capitalism spawns charlatans galore does not invalidate the basic precepts of our capitalism. It does mean we need to have some kind of policing and regulation to keep them from damaging our economic system. Benalwaleed, it is rather obvious that you come from a strong religious background. I could, if I was mean-spirited, point out a huge parade of religious charlatans. There is no reason to do so. The presence of religious charlatans does not invalidate the concept of religion. Similarly, the presence of scientific charlatans does not invalidate the basic precepts of science. What it does mean is that scientists needs to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Fortunately, the scientific method is inherently skeptical. Science does a better job of policing itself against charlatans than practically any other human endeavor. Better, but obviously not perfect. Note well, Benalwaleed: You yourself are engaging in charlatanry in making this argument.

Yes. There is no expectation that crimes in general should be treated consistently among the states or between the states and the federal government. Why should terrorism be any different? Why not? We have 50 different definitions of practically every crime. Why should terrorism be any different? Because he targeted one individual and one individual only. Compare this to others cited in this thread as terrorists. The unabomber and the DC snipers killed several people in a series of random attacks. Clinic bombers such as Eric Robert Rudolph used bombs to indiscriminately kill or injure anyone in close proximity to a birth control clinic. The intent was not just to kill/injure people but also to instill terror. A decent defense attorney could, IMO, get Roeder off. Roeder's case will be tried in Kansas. Home of the more god-fearing christians than you can count and home of the perpetual attempt to make teaching evolution illegal. Cases like this must be treated delicately in Kansas lest the prosecutor create a rogue jury that finds Roeder guilty of assault and nothing else. Perhaps not. Why should terrorism be different from any other crime? Perhaps (pure speculation on my part) the prosectors decided not to press charges of terrorism just in case the outcome is assault (and nothing else). By not charging him with terrorism in Kansas, the federal government can do so later and do so without placing Roeder in double jeopardy.

My main problem is a distinct inability to suffer fools gladly. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That is not an extract from another paper. It is an extract from the same paper you cited earlier. You even said so yourself ("See the link above"). The cited passage looks like a mix of mischaracterizations of credible sources (note the lack of quote marks) and one exact quote from a disreputable source. You will not get closer to the truth by posting straw men. So why then do you persist in posting straw men? Have you seen movies of deep sea dives? There is a constant rain of sediments from above. Of course ocean trenches were initially expected to contain a huge accumulation of sediment. That they weren't was a key indicator that something was wrong with the science of geology at the time the trenches were discovered. The discovery of the deep ocean trenches and the mid-oceanic ridges was one of the driving forces behind the development of plate tectonics. Do you have even the foggiest idea of how real science works? Crank, crank, crank. Seriously, crank. Let's see what else he has to say: There are really 12 sacred planets, just as there are 12 globes of a planetary chain. These include the seven commonly referred to, plus the Earth and four other invisible planetary chains. Each globe of our planetary chain is the child of, and in a sense built, controlled, and guided by, one in particular, but all in general, of the 12 sacred planets. Our own globe D, for example, was especially built by, and is especially guided by, Saturn, assisted by our Moon. The reference here is to the ensouling divinities of the sacred planets rather than their material bodies. Each round and each root-race are likewise under the particular governance of one of the sacred planets. Contrary to popular belief, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is not a global pandemic caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); rather, it is one of the biggest and deadliest medical scandals of modern times. There is no convincing evidence that ‘HIV’ plays any role whatsoever in impairing the immune system, let alone that it is the sole cause of AIDS. There is compelling evidence that ‘HIV’ is not readily transmitted sexually, and that AIDS is not contagious. According to theosophy, instead of condensing out of molten physical matter our globe has crystallized out of a more ethereal state of matter, described as 'fiery, cool and radiant'. The Stanzas of Dzyan (6:4) describe in figurative language how 'fohat' -- electric, vital force, guided by the universal mind -- builds planets ('wheels') by generating vorticular motion ('whirlwinds') in the primordial matter or 'fire-mist': 'He collects the fiery dust. He makes balls of fire, runs through them, and round them, infusing life thereinto, then sets them into motion'. The 'germs of wheels' are described as 'centres of force, around which primordial Cosmic matter expands, and, passing through all the six stages of consolidation, becomes spheroidal and ends by being transformed into globes or spheres'. The earth thereby 'passed from a soft plastic body into a rock-bound globe'. The 'rocky crust' or 'body shell' is said to have reached its most material state at the midpoint of our planet's evolution, several million years ago, and has since begun to return slowly to a more ethereal state. At the centre of any globe there is said to be an 'inner kingdom' composed of the lowest of the three kingdoms of elementals (ethereal, submineral nature-forces). The earth's core is described as 'concreted electricity', and is said to be analogous to the nucleus of an atom. CRACKPOT!

The article cited in the original post has a basic misunderstanding of the US legal system. There is no such thing as the US legal system. We instead have 52 legal systems (the federal system, each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia) at a minimum. Expecting the two crimes to be prosecuted the same was a false expectation. That the same crime committed in different jurisdictions is prosecuted differently should be no surprise. That Roeder was not charged with terrorism in Kansas should be no surprise. The charge is dubious at best and it may well weaken the entire prosecution at worst. A jury in Kansas might take such a charge as indicative that the prosecution is persecuting rather than prosecuting Roeder. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I already said I do not like the idea of thought crimes. A dirty little secret about crime and punishment: Prosecutors do not prosecute every violation of every law. Every state has its own pile of laws that are never prosecuted because they are obsolete or unconstitutional. The laws still exist; they simply are never prosecuted. Police and prosecutors choose whether to proceed even amongst laws that are viable. In the case of Roeder, why charge him with a crime that may weaken the entire case against him? The very last thing a prosecutor wants to do is to create a rogue jury by giving the impression of persecution rather than prosecution. Prosecutors are realists. You guys are a bunch of dreamy-eyed idealists.

Dang. I thought I saw it it section 401. That is one convoluted piece of something. Section 401 basic defines a terrorist act as an act of terrorism. Slightly better is this:http://wits.nctc.gov/Methodology.do Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents The data provided in WITS consists of incidents in which subnational or clandestine groups or individuals deliberately or recklessly attacked civilians or noncombatants (including military personnel and assets outside war zones and war-like settings). Determination of what constitutes a terrorist act, however, can be more art than science; information is often incomplete, fact patterns may be open to interpretation, and perpetrators' intent is rarely clear. The real reason for charging Muhammud with terrorist acts in addition to murder is that the federal prosecutors decided that the additional charges will help bolster the key charge of murder. The real reason for not charging Roeder with terrorist acts is that the local prosectors decided that the additional charges will detract from the key charge of murder. Moreover, does targeting a doctor constitute a terrorist act or just a hate crime? Does this show some kind of bias? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps it just represents that prosecutors are realists. To be honest, I don't like the idea of thought crimes as crimes in and of themselves. They certainly can be special circumstances that can upgrade the classification or punishment of a crime (e.g., make what would normally be construed as second degree murder into first degree murder, or make what would normally be construed as a crime worthy of a life sentence be punishable by death). A separate crime though?

Name some, please. It would be best to keep EET out of this thread. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You should give many hoots. Using logical fallacies is not a valid form of discourse. It took me but a few seconds to find this. http://www.cyberwest.com/geology/cascadia-subduction-zone-earthquake.shtml The Cascadia subduction zone off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and northern California contains forearc basins in several areas, according to Fuller. As it moves to the east at 2 inches a year, the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate slides beneath the North American plate that contains the landmass of the Pacific Northwest. In the process, sediment as deep as 1.5 miles is scraped off the top of the Juan de Fuca plate and is deformed into surface depressions on the North American plate, forming the basins where sediment from coastal rivers is deposited. The probability of large earthquakes is greatest in these areas. Rather than taking the claims made in some woo-woo web site as truth, I suggest you use your brains and see if those claims have any validity.

The linearization for [math]y=a/(x+b)[/math] is [math]z = \alpha x + \beta[/math], with [math]z= 1/y[/math], [math]\alpha = 1/a[/math], and [math]\beta = b/a[/math]. Use the standard linear regression techniques to solve for [math]\alpha[/math] and [math]\beta[/math] and then solve for a and b. Note that this will give a least squares fit in 1/y, not y.

He specifically targeted the doctor, not the population as a whole. Clinic bombing is terrorism. Whether specifically targeting the doctor is terrorism is your opinion. Muhammud acting as a civilian specifically targeted military personnel performing their military duties while they were far removed from any combat zone. That is an act of terrorism by definition. Read the Patriot Act. If you don't like it, work to change it.

Does he? Did he intend "to intimidate or coerce the civilian population", or just a tiny, tiny segment of the civilian population? Had he killed patients as well as the doctor I would say yes. He didn't. Kansas already has a solid case against him, and a capital offense at that. Why confound this solid case with an accusation that may or may not stick and that might well make a jury more inclined to give him a lesser sentence? This is Kansas, after all.

Once again, that is US law, not state law. The jurisdiction matters. Roeder is charged with violating state law. The federal government will most likely stay out of Kansas' way unless it comes up with a non-conviction or a bogus conviction. Muhammad, on the other hand committed a federal crime from the get-go.

Fine. Convince your Congresscritter to change the law. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of what you would like the law to be. To be charged with terrorism as a crime the act and the conditions around the act must meet the legal definition of terrorism, not the lay definition. Another key point: Roeder was charged with violating state law. Terrorism, as far as I know, is covered by federal law. The federal government typically does not get involved in state criminal trials immediately. It instead lets the state try to do the right thing without federal intervention. Suppose Roeder is found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstances (lying in wait or hate crime) and is sentenced to death or to jail for life without parole. There will be no reason for the federal government to make a federal case. Muhammad, on the other hand, killed a member of the military in the act of performing military duty. This is a federal crime. There is every reason for the federal government to get involved in this case from the onset.

bombus, you have presented one purported "problem" with plate tectonics and it has been dealt with. Your only direct response was It is a straw man argument. The argument depends upon the implicit assumption that plates are of a fixed size. Plate tectonics does not say this at all. Saying (or implying) that it does and then attempting to tear down plate tectonics based on this is a straw man. What other "problems" with plate tectonics theory do you see? Now you are employing another logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have a complete theory does not invalidate the theory. Good thing that; there is no such thing as a complete theory in any branch of science.

Wikipedia, last I read, doesn't count as a legal reference. The key distinguishing factor is that Muhammad, acting as a civilian, killed a member of the military far removed from a combat zone for political reasons. Roeder, acting as a civilian, killed a civilian for political reasons. The first is a terrorist act by definition. The second could be a terrorist act if Roeder had had support from an officially recognized terrorist group. He didn't. Why pin a charge on Roeder that any reasonably capable defense attorney, even a publicly appointed one, could easily get dismissed? We are a nation of laws. If you don't like the laws regarding what does and does not constitute terrorism, convince Congress to change them.

Good catch! He got it from Neal Adam's web site. That's not to say that the depiction is inaccurate. What is inaccurate is the cartoonish straw man argument presented in his cartoonish website and regurgitated in post #6.