Pangloss

Oh, and you also need a DNR. That's a completely separate issue.

BTW, a living will isn't enough in a lot of states. The main criticism usually leveled at living wills is that they're too specific in their language. The number and variety of things that can actually happen to put you in states similar to Shiavo's is really quite large. In fact a living will can also be disputed, and one of the reasons for disputing it is a disagreement between family members about what you wanted. In short, Terry Shiavo would be in exactly this same position if she'd had a living will. A better move is to sign a durable power of attorney, which basically appoints someone to make that decision for you based on all of the specific facts of your case compared with your known preferences. It's worth noting that, as was proven in trial (twice), Shiavo expressed her wishes to her husband and her friends, not only in general, casual terms, but in the specific context of not one, but TWO relatives who died. The judges took all that into account when deciding that it was pretty clear what this woman wanted.

Well my car appears to have died on me, so it looks like I'm dining in today. (chuckle) Ok, are you sure you're not supposed to be using PPPoE and logging in to the service? What you've done is how most cable services work but not all of 'em.

Ok, I'm gonna run out for a few minutes and grab some lunch, but I'll check when I get back. I don't know that I can really help you much, though, because what I'm thinking is that you are going to have to talk to someone who uses the same service as you, so you can figure out what the settings are supposed to be and then translate them into terminology that the 524 uses. That's where I may be able to help. You should run some searches and see if you can find some boards with other users of your service. I have DSL service through BellSouth. We use PPPoE here and the router has to issue the username and password. Generally speaking if you get these settings wrong it doesn't allow connection at all, but I can see where some of these settings might cause you to have an intermittent connection.

Believe it or not, I'm using exactly the same router right now. Can you go to the Router's setup pages (192.168.0.1)? Then click the WAN button at left and tell me how that page (the Home tab should be yellow) is configured.

Well, at risk of making a mountain out of a molehill, it's still right here on the same page, guy. Specifically what you said was: I added the bolding just to point it out. I didn't say that you did, and I don't feel that you did. You talked about evil in the abject sense, about the subject itself, and that's how I responded to it in the two sentences you quoted back to me: I don't think that you think Wolfowitz is evil, I think you're concerned about what he's done and what he's going to do, and I share that concern. Great, glad to hear it. It's an agendized, extremist back-patting club exaggerating half-truths to convey conspiracy theories as if they are facts. In answer to your question, it is both non-credible and very biased. Nobody in their right mind would assume that anything they read there was even remotely related to the truth without verification from a reputable source. And taking a shower afterwards. (I need one myself now. Thanks a lot.) (shudder)

The results of ABC News' poll showing a whopping 77% in support of removal can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1 As could be expected, the federal judge refused to order reinsertion, for the same reasons as the last 15 judges who have reviewed the TWO trials that took place. The parents, of course, appealed.

"Gas prices have been so high that Robert Blake and O.J. have been forced to carpool in their search for the real killers." -- Jay Leno

ROFL! She has no cognitive function. It makes no difference to me how they do it.

You did actually use the word evil (I quoted it in one of my replies), but maybe I read it out of context. I apologize if that's the case. But the sources I've seen you post recently are so blatantly biased that they can't be taken seriously. It'd be like trying to convince people that aliens live amongst us by giving them a bunch of hyperlinks not from a reliable, objective sources, but from "www.webelievethataliensliveamongstus.com". So they're going to open their eyes for a moment, see that it's not objective information, and close them again. Is that really what you want? I dunno, it just seems like a waste to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat. "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject." -- Winston Churchill

Bettina, did you read my comment in bold above? Okay, now you say he shouldn't die. Glad to hear it. What should happen, then, to the man who looked at you funny in the mall?

This is a tough case, so I didn't want to weigh on on it until I had reviewed it and thought it over again. I remember debating this a couple of years ago when it was just a Florida issue. This has been "going on" for Floridians for something like ten years now. (sigh) But it had been a while since I'd thought about it. One of the trial judges viewed the entire four hours of that tape (which was made about five years ago) and commented on it extensively in the trial notes, basically saying that there's no consistency in her reactions whatsoever. Subsequent attempts to get her eyes to follow the balloon, for example, failed. This is not inconsistent with a destroyed cerebral cortex (in fact in a liquified state) sitting atop a fully functional brain stem (which controls autonomic funtions). In short, the lights are on, but nobody is home. The Governor's office in 2003 appointed a well-known medical professor to review her case and report back to his office. He went over tens of thousands of pages of documentation and sat with Shiavo every day for several weeks, and not once did he (or anyone who was observing with him) observe any kind of cognitive function whatsoever. This is the most adjudicated right-to-die case in US history, with 10 years on the dockets and 16 judges ruling on it, with every single one deciding in the husband's favor. Not only did she state otherwise to her husband, she also stated otherwise to numerous other family members and friends, all of whom testified in both of the two trials that were held. That is the whole point of the argument. He could just pass her guardianship to the parents and get a divorce -- god knows it would be easier than going through ten years of this nonsense. It simply defies reason that he would want to have her die when he could simply get a divorce. Obviously he's doing this out of conviction that it's what she wanted. Not if her cognitive function is completely absent.

Yes, it was your definition that I was looking for, thanks. I'm not trying to be mean -- I've been doing this a long time, and it's easy for me to take advantage, and I don't mean to do that here. But I did set a "debate trap" for you there, and you fell right into it, so I might as well go ahead and point it out, even if it feels like I'm clubbing a baby seal or something. Sorry. You've just declared that anybody who looks at you in a way you disapprove of should be executed. If you don't believe me, go back and review the thread. It's all there. Now I think it's pretty obvious that you didn't really mean to say that. But it is what you said. My point here is just to make it clear that it's easy to get upset and declarative about something, but it's generally much harder to make just laws and a just society. Much harder.

Sure, that's why I said "if". But an important question is whether we will *ever* be able to identify "evidence that big business is capable of voluntary non-discrimination" in an environment in which they're not allowed to make any such choice in the first place. You can point to specific examples of violation, but those are a tiny percentage of the total. What you need is some sort of overall assessment. But any numbers currently in use are tainted by bias either for or against affirmative action, and are therefore scientifically worthless. I think we need to decide as a society if we want this to be handled by an agenda (for or against), or if we want it to be handled by the truth. That might be a good start. I'm a little confused -- I thought you were postulating that society was NOT more enlightened. Businesses aren't run by computers, you know. But I guess you're basically saying that society is more enlightened in general, but businesses are still inclined towards discrimination. Fair enough in the opinion department, but from what I've seen there's just no objective evidence to back this up OR refute it. But I've already touched on this above so let me move on. At any rate, you had me right up until the last six words. While we've definitely gotten across the notion that discrimination is wrong in our society, I'm not sure that most people really care WHY. And there's nothing enlightened about people who behave in a certain way without regard towards why that behavior is better than some other behavior. This applies to BOTH sides of the affirmative action debate. There is, in my book, no fundamental difference between someone who, due solely to social pressures (racism), refuses to hire a black man because he's black, and someone who, due solely to social pressures (political correctness), hires a black man because he is black. They are equally damning, equally vapid in their ignorance, and equally damaging to society. The ONLY difference is that the latter causes less harm to the black man in the example.

For some reason the discussion about neo-cons seems to have split into two threads. You might want to check this out, Tiny: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=144062#post144062

Define "sexual predator" please.

Have you tried some basic single-elimination troubleshooting? Like disconnecting the other computers from the network, or testing connections between local computers through the router? That would definitely pin it down to a router-modem issue. Which router and modem are you using? Can you list some of the basic configuration settings?

I would, if scientific, objective analysis indicated that the atmosphere had suddenly acquired a new ability to cleanse itself of pollution. In other words, if society is no longer of a discriminatory bent, then the analogy is flawed.

The Wikipedia has a good page on the pros and cons of Affirmative Action here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action Being somewhat of a libertarian/centrist type, I tend to lean rather towards opposition to it. But I am generally in favor of the legal system of anti-discriminatory practices (i.e. you can't deny someone a job just because they're black). Purists often oppose those measures as well, on the basis that an employer should be free to employ whomever he chooses for whatever reason he likes. But I think history has shown us that this is a valid compromise. But Affirmative Action seems to cross the line for me. But I have heard some good, well-reasoned arguments in favor of AA, and if you're writing a paper then of course you'll need to read those and digest them fully, whether you agree with them or not. One of the more interesting areas you may want to take a look at is that segment of the black community which opposes Affirmative Action. Lead by prominent individuals (such as Bill Cosby), their position essentially is that it holds them back by giving them something they haven't earned. It's an interesting line of reasoning, and it does have some interesting counter-points as well, which you may have to dig for, but I would try the NAACP web site and similarly inclined advocacy groups. You might also want to look into "Title IX", which is basically a legislated prohibition against gender discrimination in sports, but which from a practical point of view has presented some rather interesting challenges for educational institutions, which often use sporting events as a major revenue stream (often benefitting non-sports students). For example, a men's sports team might be eliminated because a women's team can't be constructed due to lack of interest. (But the arguments in favor of it are interesting and provocative as well, and it is generally seen as a successful application of affirmative action.) Good luck with the paper!

I've read that stuff as well, and it does not lead an objective person to the word "insanity" as a logical conclusion. They also don't propose "infinite war", or that America always "needs an enemy" -- that's an interpretation of their position on your part. This is what I mean when I say that you lose me when you go too far. You're welcome to do that -- I never fault someone for having an opinion -- but I think you should understand that when you do that it tells people something about you, not about the people you're trying to stop. In essence, you're throwing away your ability to convey a rational analysis just so you can demonize, probably because you think it's necessary to stop this evil. But the truth is that it isn't necessary at all. Reason and logic are alive and well in our time. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The position of neo-conservatives goes something like this: - America has achieved a dominant position, and should act to protect it, because the world is not our friend, and other nations act in their best self-interest, so why shouldn't we? - The American system is demonstratively better than other systems. So for it to be dominant in all world affairs is actually better for everyone, not just Americans. - A strong military is necessary for dominance. The Reaganite "peace through strength" concept has a valid place in today's world even after the fall of the Soviet block, and in fact we have no choice but to follow it. - Countries which are hostile with the US should be dealt with directly and forcefully, and not ignored. First through diplomacy, but always with the threat of military invention if they do not comply. Compliance means a democratic system of government and recognition of basic human rights, but more importantly, non-hostility towards the US (i.e. no state-sponsorship of terrorism, for example, but in terms of economics and trade as well as use of force). - The US should not be bound by treaties which reduce its military or economic dominance. That includes things like the ABM treaty as well as the Kyoto accord. (The key thing to remember here is that both the ABM treaty and the Kyoto accord are being rejected for the same fundamental/ideological reason. Note that I'm not saying this is why they were rejected by the Bush administration; I'm saying that's why neo-cons oppose them. It's ALSO probably why the Bush administration rejected them, but I'm trying to keep the subject focused here.) All of these points are debatable. All of them are quite clearly flawed if they are not checked with appropriate balances. But they're not "insane". There's nothing in the above to indicate that they would actually prefer "infinite war", or that America "needs enemies". On the contrary, they don't want war or enemies at all, they want everyone to be in happy compliance and buy another toaster and a microwave with "Made in the USA" stamped on the side. Dangerous, yes. Something people need to be more aware of, yes. Evil? No. Evil is what you would get if you allowed something like this to proceed unchecked. But it's not evil for people to want their country to be dominant. It's not evil for people to want their country to be strong. It's not evil for people to want to deal with enemies who they believe are hurting them. The evil lies in not paying attention to the consequences of unilateral actions.

Well I thought LOTR should have had an intermission just to allow people to go to the bathroom without missing anything. It's ridiculous -- you buy drinks and popcorn and then have to sit there for 3-4 hours? Come on. But it doesn't matter anymore. I don't see movies in the theater anymore. LOTR was one of the view exceptions. Crying children, ringing cellphones, people having conversations, parking hassles, astronomical prices... no thanks. I bought a DLP projector and a killer sound system and that's the end of that. Home Theater uber alles!

Well you tend to lose me when you speak in such absolutist terms. I think these guys are dangerous, but we must remember the value of opposition in democracy, and not declare them to be evil just because they disagree with us. There have been some interesting points made by left-oriented observers who seem to be fairly intrigued by the appointment. Fareed Zakaria, the Editor of Newsweek, had some interesting points on This Week, which he seems to have summed up pretty nicely in his magazine column: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244592/site/newsweek/ He goes on to outline the standard reasons why it looks like a bad idea to have a conservative at the helm of the Bank (they generally have been extremely critical of where the money has been going). But at the end he does shift the view a little bit: Like I said, I think he's intrigued by the possibility. And it makes sense -- we're literally telling Paul Wolfowitz to put our money where his mouth is. It could be interesting.

Yeah you're probably right, the ancient Romans would be a pretty good facsimile of modern conservatives. This being the society that invented the patron/client system, not to mention class division by income. Heck you couldn't even be a Senator (or in the early days a SOLDIER) unless you owned *land*. None of that stuff may be directly analogous to modern conservatism, but viewed in the context of that society it really comes across more or less exactly like modern conservatism. It's also worth noting that that system broke down because of rot from *within*. Staunch "conservatives" breaking the rules and traditions in order to get ahead. (chuckle)

That's interesting. The "closure" concept is something I've never quite understood. You hear it a lot, but the 30-second sound bites on the evening news, and the melodramatic way Hollywood tosses the phrase around, don't really seem to explain it very well (almost to the point of turning it into a cliche). Maybe it's just one of those things that can't really be understood unless you've gone through it, I don't know. But I think what you said above about wanting the pain to go away, and wanting others to feel it, are aspects of it that I hadn't considered before. You've given me something new to think about. I wonder how many kids are watching this trial, seeing what a circus it is, and talking themselves out of going to their teacher or parent about what's been happening to them. Nicely put.

Coral, nice posts above. This discussion has been really interesting mainly because of your input. (That's not a slight on Bettina, I just think it takes two good, strong posters on opposite sides to make a discussion interesting.) Nice post, Phi. I'll add that I've read numerous times that families of victims often say after the death penalty is applied that "it didn't bring them back" (or words to that effect). I'm a big supporter of a strong legal system, personal responsibility, and harsh punishment for crimes. But I think it's been clearly shown that the death penalty is no more of a deterrent on a criminal than, say, the phrase "without possibility of parole". They know the game they're playing is an all-or-nothing deal. So the death penalty is about *us*, not them. I will say that, on Bettina's "side", I totally agree with something that has been an unspoken subtext in this thread, which is that justice (at least in my country) has a lot to do with how much money you can spend on it. That's a horrible travesty and we need to continue to work hard to limit and eliminate that problem. But two wrongs don't make a right. And obsession can be an incredibly dangerous and destructive emotion.