john5746

short history lesson Of course, we will probably learn more lessons this time around. Maybe the lesson will be: moderation is key.

Seems to me the more observations you have the better. Just doing a simple regression would be better with all the data points, I would think. Does anyone think if the first scientist used only the second set of experiments it would be a better model than the second scientist?

I think Pakistan, more than Iran is going to be the next foreign crisis.

Good point, but to be fair, I decided not to watch expelled based on the commercials and what I had heard was in the movie. I did not want any money to go towards that venture. After seeing more of it, I don't even want to watch it for free.

It's all so uncertain. We can create our own experiences, our own reality. It's called delusion. Seriously, positive thoughts and meditation can be useful in our perceptions. No need to drag rubbish into it. Great analogy. I think I'll use it. Well, maybe I'll replace ice cream with big butts.

I bet they believe in evolution.

I think you could generalize this further and ask should ANY group of people be ridiculed? Certain aspects of all groups are ridiculed at some point, but it can be taken to far. So, maybe this movie is in poor taste. Maybe he could take care in being more specific about the type of people he is criticizing. That's the problem with groups. That would be as far as I could go in comparing the two movies as I perceive them. I will watch the movie, then I will have a better idea. I certainly wouldn't appreciate a movie that portrayed all muslims as suicide bombers, so if he does something like that, then I would conclude that its garbage.

I haven't seen either, but here goes: the Creationism/Evolution argument is in the realm of science the religion argument is in the realm of opinion Ben Stein is claiming that people who do not allow 2 + 2 = 'BOB' to be taught in math are intolerant atheists. He is being stupid, intellectually dishonest and probably just lying. Bill Mahr is claiming that people who think their music is the only true music are not only wrong, but that their music sucks. He is being politically incorrect. More tolerance of opinions is a good thing, which includes criticism. Tolerance of incorrect teachings or ignorance of facts is not a good thing.

Cheney probably signed it for him.

During the debate, I took it to mean that it defines his role in the legislative and then for emphasis, he said that the VP is of the Executive Branch. I'll have to watch it again. That being said, it says that the VP is the President of the senate, with the vote being the most important power. So, I think Biden was wrong on that one, but mentioning Cheney made him right.

Palin came through with flying colors. Her style was better, except for the heavy accent and "average" verbage, but that was for her audience. I think Biden did well also, he fought off the attacks on Obama very well. Palin was not able to defend McCain as well, but she was really there to defend herself. Biden was the obvious winner to me, but she will be the obvious winner to her crowd and did enough for the right wing intelligencia, I think. Gwen Ifill did cut Palin off for time early in the debate and gave Biden the last closing remarks, but I saw no obvious bias.

http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jul02/nr_jul02_mindseye.html Dr. Ramachandran has done some work in this area and posits that there may be cross-wiring between adjacent brain modules that cause this ability. My guess would be that color and sequencing would be wired very similarly in their respective modules in most people, so when cross-wiring occurs, you would get similar color/sequence patterns. He tends to use the word "defective" too much, but you can catch the meaning.

If a bailout is not realized, everyone will run to cash or gold, because....everyone will be running for cash or gold. Buying a house on the cheap does no good if your cash flow is zero. If you allow banks to go under, who is going to have money to buy anything?

Murder is defined as being bad, so yeah it will be a no-no, thanks to circular logic. But what is defined as murder changes with POV and time. There's something called compromise. It would be nice to just make it illegal to smoke, but we know that people are addicted, so they can't just quit, even if they want to. It would be nice to snap our fingers and make all autos emissions free, but that's pretty difficult. Doing nothing because we can't do it all makes no sense. I guess those big tips pay for the lung cancer? There are risks to everything, this is true. We should expect reasonable approaches to reducing/avoiding risk. Firemen and Police are trying to save lives, they have extensive training and gear to reduce risks. Secretaries have ergonomic work stations, etc. They need to type to do their job. Waitresses do not need to inhale smoke to perform their duties, it isn't saving lives and customers do not need to smoke. Asking people not to smoke in certain areas sounds reasonable to me.

That's the way I understand Natural Selection.

All judgements are subjective - they are goal based. This line from the Declaration of Independance is NOT objective "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and the proof, IMO is in the next sentence "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That doesn't make it less desirable that it isn't a physical law, just that people have to discuss and enforce it. OK, I think we agree on the goal. We both want clean air, I am just advocating a more pragmatic solution. It is far easier to ask people not to smoke in certain areas then immediately replacing the internal combustion engine. We are moving toward lower to zero emissions with cars. We may then find environmental problems related to the batteries, etc. We can then deal with that. So you want to wait for Jesus to come down and give us the objective law? Timeless is a freaking long time. The problem with private business in the public square is that you do have a responsibility to the employees and customers. You can't expect employees to be exposed to smoke all the time as part of their employment, IMO. Air quality in the Smokey Mountains during high pollen seasons may be worse, but are we going to wait until we get that fixed before we do anything about smoking?

That's my argument exactly, that our way of life would be harmed too much to get rid of ALL pollution. We don't immediately destroy all buildings with lead paint and asbestos when we find they are a danger. We adjust and go on. I think we all want to make greener cars in the future, just as we want to make safer homes, cleaner air & water. Eliminating smoke from the workplace is a step in the direction. We can't get there immediately, but we can make changes as we go. What's you objective stance? How do we decide what is OK or not in a business? Can we ever prohibit anything? All men are created equal, but not all men make the same decisions. Smoking is a bad decision that leads to an addiction. You cannot drink alcohol while working and driving. It sucks if you are an alcoholic, sorry. Being black has nothing to do with any choice and has no impact on other people. If you continue to fail and see how this analogy is flawed, then there is no point in further discussion. I hope you can see the difference in telling someone they cannot smoke while in my restaurant vs telling blacks they cannot dine in my restaurant. Smoking is an action, not a person. It's as if you think the constitution allows you the freedom to shit when and where you like.

There is truth to the majority rules. If there was one guy running around in a car, I'm sure we would stop him. We can't eliminate all carbon emissions and all air pollution without going back to the stone age, but we can at least eliminate some in a practical manner. People need cars as a means to travel so it is impractical to eliminate economical transportation. With smoking it is feeding an addiction. I'm not a big proponent of restaurants, etc having to ban smoking, because it is an easy choice for people to go somewhere else or sit in a non-smoking area. But the workplace is different. Just as you shouldn't expect someone to breath nail polish all day, they shouldn't have to breath smoke either. People can do it at home, etc, but not force others to breath it, especially in the confines of employment. You would be the one arguing for slavery because kids had to work long hours or some such nonsense or because it imposed on the poor white owners. You are the one arguing all or nothing.

Looks good to me, kind of removes the collapse function though. From the perspective of a student, it would seem that a homework thread or section within each category would be easier. If you want to ask a Physics question, post it under homework in the physics section. But, I don't ask or field such questions, so maybe not.

Should all indoor health conditions be left up to the business owners? Before you mention cars again, we do have restrictions on how much pollution is allowed from cars - it isn't up to business owners or vehicle producers as to how much pollution their vehicles can generate.

I put most of the blame on Pelosi. She is the leader of the house, not Bush. She was practically smiling as if she had won a contest when it failed. She better get less than 50 no's on the democrat side and get that damn thing passed. I will be more than happy to give Obama a republican congress to work with next time. It worked with Clinton. I left that message with my democrat congressman, I'm sure it will get lost under the opposed crowd.

Yes, anytime you have that much money that quickly, there will be waste and fraud. Best we can hope for is that most of the money will shore up the financial sector until stability is reached. With a new election and the holidays coming, this might help consumer morale and get us on the way to a long recovery. While the waste of money with Katrina was bad, the inaction was far worse. That is what we want to avoid. I think it will be far worse than people realize.

I think economics education should be up there with history. However, in my experience, basic economics concentrated on how the market works, etc. and not much on government policy. I see how this is necessary to digest the material, but it leaves the impression that the "invisible" hand of the market is all the really is needed, except during a crisis. At least stressing the value of saving and diverse investment would be helpful to the individual.

Yeah, the outside bans seem excessive, I guess to keep a huddle of smokers and butts from massing right outside an entry door. I guess if you are working in a garage and cars are running all the time without proper ventilation, you might have a case?

Oh for Pete's sake!