Phi for All

dave likes Guinness. Buy him a case and he'll change your name to Elizabeth Windsor if you want.

Tull also had this to say about socializing and introspection: Brain-storming' date=' habit-forming, battle-warning weary winsome actor spewing spineless chilling lines-- The critics falling over to tell themselves he's boring And really not an awful lot of fun. Well who the hell can he be when he's never had V.D., And he doesn't even sit on toilet seats? Court-jesting, never-resting--he must be very cunning To assume an air of dignity And bless us all With his oratory prowess, His lame-brained antics and his jumping in the air. And every night his act's the same And so it must be all a game of chess he's playing-- But you're wrong, Steve. You see, it's only solitaire. [/i'] Sometimes the people who seem to have the most confidence are only acting.

Make the effort? I thought it was clear that my cryofreeze option was for when it was commercially feasible (i.e., cheap) and we could store them virtually free in a subzero climate. Do you have any idea what it costs to utilize the death penalty? MAJOR effort, minimally effective, morally reprehensible. Old Testament justice for the computer age. We're better than that.

Why? Unusual maybe, but suspended animation isn't cruel, just very restrictive. It could be argued that, for those who don't see life in prison as being such a bad thing, being frozen would be a better deterrent. And someone who is a block of ice isn't going to escape to hurt anyone, not without some multi-million dollar Hollywood plot and the capabilities for cryonic resuscitation.

I oppose the death penalty in all instances. It is not the deterrent people want it to be. It deters you and me, maybe, but chances are we wouldn't kill anyone even if it were legal. If it's not a deterrent, then it's vengeance, and that diminishes us as a society. Retribution assumes the penalty is justly deserved, and no human, even a murderer, deserves to die at the hands of another human. It may sound good to say it regarding some vicious killer, but getting what you deserve should never mean death. Civilized society should face its problems, not sweep them under the rug. I think when cryogenic freezing becomes commercially feasible, the death penalty should be abolished and everyone who gets life imprisonment should be frozen and stored in Antarctica. No maintenance costs, no killing, no inhumane treatment, and your case can be reviewed every hundred years or so.

Al Franken would favor "staying the course" and Rush Limbaugh would deny that the media is liberal. Americans would remain confused. What if all personal motorized transportation were banned in favor of mass transit?

How many of the other climate forcing criteria are as controllable as greenhouse gasses? I could be wrong but I think the overemphasis on greenhouse gasses may stem from the fact that regulation of fuel emissions would have a more cumulative effect than anything we could currently do to affect the Earth's radiative budget.

From a 100' drop you would just float on the balls?

If that's the case, there would be less "balls" to displace with #1 since they would be larger and leave more air between them. It would take LONGER to reach the bottom with #2. The question is not worded very well. You may not reach the bottom at all, but you would go DEEPER into the pool if it were filled with #1 (but the question stinks like #2).

I hate to keep being all, you know, practical and everything, because I know you really want to somehow dissolve this small mountain, but have you at least called a local quarry to see if they'd remove it for free? There really are people who pay a ton o' cash for landscaping rocks. It might be the easiest route before you start scarring it up too much with hammers and chemicals and explosives (oh my!).

I tend to equate shyness with low self-esteem, but I know that's not always the case. Most people I know who are shy don't trust themselves enough to say what they feel or talk to people they don't know with confidence. We all want approval and sometimes shyness is a buffer so we can gauge how well we come across. It's usually not the safe bet we think it is when meeting new people. Sometimes the friendliest, most interesting people seem boring and disinterested when acting shy.

It's got to be the same house, AL, and thanks. I knew he had to have it computerized, but the low FM transmitter answered my other questions. I couldn't imagine living near this guy if he ran this in a regular loop WITH the sound. It rocks, but not 50 times a night.

Doesn't this have to be the home of an electrical engineer? I don't know how old this video is but the guy has talent. http://members.cox.net/transam57/lights.wmv Has anyone done anything similar?

It's definitely free speech. I'm equally free to use it as a way to explain freedom of speech to my kids. And I'm equally free to speak to every department store Santa I could find and get them to file charges against this neighbor for aggravated assault (the threat of violence involving a weapon). He seems to be using a hangman's noose to threaten the lives of department store Santas everywhere. I believe the police would have to investigate each charge.

Excuse me? What part of, "I am a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert" don't you understand? The man is an expert and thus the source. I didn't say they were lying. I said they used terms like "immediate" which can imply many things to the suggestible reader. I said they were trying to justify invading Iraq. Once again, the Iraqis intent is not something I'm aware of. I notice the State Department excerpts you quoted make no mention of the Iranian army soldiers who were also present at the time. I had this debate with others at the time of the invasion when it was being argued that these chemical agents were considered WMDs. Since nuclear weapons weren't found, the Bush administration concentrated heavily on making chemical agents sound like instant killers, which they are not. "Gassing the Kurds" was a carefully constructed sound byte, and I hate being led by the nose to conclusions others want me to make. So to clarify, I'm not arguing what the Iraqis intent was for the citizens of Halabja. Gasses are too easily dispersed, too difficult to handle and too costly in many ways to make them effective as the mass killers many would like us to believe they are.

What is their definition of immediate? If it includes times of up to an hour, then my earlier assertion stands. I'm not really arguing about what the gasses were used for, only that they are not normally used as killing agents, and they are not something that drops you in your tracks instantly. Please read the report by a military expert from YT's homepage. It's by someone with no agenda, someone who has experience with field operations, and is not from a State Department trying to justify a war. Here's the link again: http://www.yt2095.net/news/terror.htm

Your quote and your misleading vividness both come from the Kurdish Democratic Party website, complete with advertisers, hardly an unbiased, objective source. As for the bodies found in their own front yards, you have no idea how long they were trapped inside the gassed area. This is completely false. One of the few facts the United States Defense Intelligence Agency uncovered is that Iraq did NOT have any blood agents (cyanide-based) but that Iran did. The Kurds were killed with a blood agent and Saddam was using mustard gas at the time. Plenty of both were used at Halabja, but this is not my point. All the crap that's been spread in the media about mustard gas and nerve agents being instant killers is just wrong. It freaks people out, for some reason a lot more than the idea of flushing an enemy (or a civilian) out of hiding so you can blow them away with far cheaper bullets. It makes for better press and gets more sympathy to paint a picture of some invisible chemical/biological science being used to kill as opposed to the conventional weapons seen in action films and TV.

Rumors aside, mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX are ALL area-denial gasses. You get gassed, you move out of the area, you live. If you stay long enough, you die. In military use they are used to flush people out of an area either so you can shoot them or so you can later secure an area or both. They are NOT some sort of Hollywood one-whiff-and-you-drop-dead miracle agent. YT2095 used to have an excellent article written by a military expert on his website (it may still be there). It described what actually is a WMD and what was not, and also described the effects of most of these gasses. Even the Sarin gas which was used in the terrorist attack in Tokyo in 1995 proved lethal to twelve people out of 6000 exposed to it because it was in a crowded subway where people had trouble leaving the area.

You're right, I shouldn't be off tangent hunting. If we skip the trial process for Saddam, won't that set a precedent for every alleged criminal of equal or lesser stature?

Let's say the USA was at war with Mexico. Mexico attacks us through Arizona and the president finds out that most of the citizens of Nogales, AZ helped the Mexican army infiltrate the border. The Mexican army is entrenched in the streets and buildings of Nogales and the US army decides to use an area-denial gas to flush out the troops so the army can shoot them. The traitorous Nogalesites believe that if they leave the buildings they will probably be shot as well, so they stay inside and are killed by the gas instead. Do the headlines read, "President Gasses Nogalesites" or do they read, "Army Defeats Enemy Threat"? This is the victor's version of what happened to the Kurds who were gassed during the Iraq/Iran war. Do we know for certain that Saddam's troops would have fired on unarmed Kurds fleeing the gas? Or would the soldiers have focussed on the armed Iranians as training probably dictated? Gas is used to clear an area, and is not effective as a means to kill people unless they insist on staying. I'm not blaming the Kurds mind you, or saying they got what they deserved. I'm just pointing out that perspective is tricky and probably best left to the courts.

"Getting skinnier as I approach the speed of light!" "Neutron information available here--No charge!" Gilded had an idea for one some time ago that I modified: "So cool I'm superconductive!"

"What are YOU looking at, two eyes?!" "I didn't get to be a Starship Captain by living in a fantasy world!" "It's chic to be geek!" "Don't start the evolution without me!""

And yet IDiotsTMstill claim that man and apes don't share a common ancestor.

Any good candidates you can think of besides Mokele and In My Memory?

I think none of the poll choices are within my purview. I think Saddam Hussein is a thug, I don't think he is a terrorist sympathizer, I think he was a brutal dictator, I don't think that much of what is being heaped upon him is valid. He is probably guilty of much, but is a scapegoat for the rest. I am content to let the courts decide.