john5746

Life on Earth is boring? Try another planet. Be thankful you are living comfortable enough to be bored. That is one of our problems - we have been wired to survive using our brains. If we no longer need it to survive, some become bored and depressed. The only advice I can give is that your condition is internal. It isn't the world's fault. Life is what it is.

There would be much less emphasis on human resources - education, production, etc.

It's in my DNA, sorry.

Well, just because you have two options doesn't mean they MUST be equally probable. Loaded dice for example. I maintain since we have evidence that planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies are capable of forming and dying on their own, this makes it more likely that the container formed on its own as well, IMO. So, I wouldn't give it a 50/50, but then again, I couldn't give it any probability. I can only say it is highly unlikely. We could also argue semantics. When I think of a creator, I think of an intelligent agent that creates with a purpose. You could have an organism that farted, with no purpose and the universe is the result. I wouldn't count this as creation, the universe created itself from chaos.

We haven't been able to get past my great, great grandfather, directly, but we do know the surname has Scots/Irish roots. I was wondering, many Americans are happy knowing what countries their ancestors came from. How about non-immigrants? How far back is good enough?

I finally watched the video and wow! It is better than science fiction. It warps my mind to think about it. My gut tells me that intellect/computational power will supersede emotions - in fact, emotions may be seen as undesirable.

With no other information, 50/50 would seem the logic first guess, other than I have no idea?

I'd love to do one on the cucumber!

My belief is that the banana skit is stupid. Are you calling my beliefs dumb? How dare you!

It shouldn't be very complicated for the average person, unless they itemize, which 70% do not. The only reason a flat tax would be more simple is the elimination of deductions. The current tax rate is a piecewise continuous function. Fitting a curve to it would be Ok assuming an automated calculation method, but many with poor math skills would not know how to solve a 2nd order quadratic equation. You never are at a disadvantage making more money! You only pay the higher rate on the money within the tax bracket, so while there may be less of an incentive to making more money as you go up the ladder, you still are taking home more money.

Kind of like when you see a little dog and it looks cute. You like it and pet it. Then, it keeps trying to hump your leg - very irritating, so you kick it in the sack and tell it to bum off. Understand now?

Herme3, Your avatar is very accurate. There are ancient texts older than the Bible, so clearly it is wrong.

Creationism is a pretty easy concept - God did it. It isn't a theory or explanation, just a belief. And about the Gravity bit. To draw a comparison, its as if someone would say, yes I believe there is gravity on Earth, but the solar system is held together by the hand of God. You can have that belief, but don't equate that as a scientific theory.

You can look back in history and find various things to support every viewpoint. Allowing Hitler to build up an arsenal wasn't a good thing, but not starting a war with the Soviet Union - who vowed to "crush" us was a good thing. I think we have some time to try to work on Iran. I want to wait for the next President, who hopefully can bring some diplomacy. This President can't even get along with his own party!

I don't see why not, we are talking about the creation of the universe and your proposition makes sense to me. It either formed on its own, or it was created. 50/50. But, if we are seeing evidence that the coin has landed heads, then it doesn't really matter what the chances were.

Pretty easy to me - cause and effect. Why treat people differently at all? Why give one student an A and another an F? Depends on how you shape your morality. If you say life must be guarded at all costs, then you can't have death penalty, abortion, war, etc. If you make exceptions, then you can take life for certain situations. Even programs have exceptions, surely moral codes can as well.

Some other species may wonder this in the future as well.

This has been discussed many times in many ways. The morality issue cannot be resolved. If someone doesn't want to take a life on moral grounds, that is it, discussion over. I have no moral problem with taking a life. On an individual case, it is very easy to support the death penalty. Give me a gun and I will kill this guy myself, no problem. But, for the state to be able to do it on a regular basis, then you have the problem with innocents being murdered, etc. With the moral resolved for me, what it boils down to is economics. If we say everyone has a right to life that cannot be taken away, that doesn't guarantee the right to free resources to keep that person living, IMO. Healthcare, food, shelter, cable TV, legal services etc all are provided for these people. To me they must work to offset these costs, if at all possible. If they don't work, then they can be refused all but the most basic(bread, water) of resources. That's what would happen to me if I refused to work and I am innocent as well. Indeed, some convicts find life outside of prison harder than on the inside. Also, I don't see the distinction in sanity. A predator that will kill again is dangerous whether it is a lion, an insane person or a sane person. If the person is "fixed", they still need to serve the life in prison. Unfair? It was unfair for the victim too. I think if the death penalty were applied with a bullet to the head right after conviction, it would have some deterrent effect, but probably not for this type of murderer. It is like an instinct for them.

Maybe Italy? Iran is no where close to "world domination"

Edited next post.

I agree. Hopefully, they asked for what they thought they really needed and complained to him when they didn't get it. But, that's about all you can expect. Also, they may be looking back in retrospect and seeing the bigger picture now, versus thier sphere of influence at the time. Maybe at the time within their viewpoint, they thought he was an OK bast*rd.

Yes, the military, where everyone is free to express themselves and go thier own way! How about those soldiers over there who are fighting in a war they don't agree with or who disagree with the management? Why are they still there? Is it purely for individual advancement? There is a thing called the chain of command and you follow it, unless there is some very serious moral reason to break it. Even then, some do not. Like it or not, the military is far more effective with a dictator approach, not a democratic one. This is why the politicians and people should voice their opinions, pro or con. Oh, to answer the OP, Rumsfeld offered his resignation to Bush, so it is Bush who has decided to keep him. I think Bush should have replaced him after the military victory, when the operation became more of a Marshall law operation.