Pangloss

I think this new standard includes SUVs and light trucks. You mean have them all at the same number? I agree with that so long as it is, as you say, for non-commercial purposes. Why do they get a lower requirement anyway? Wanting to haul large/heavy objects around for entertainment purposes (or stir up some mud) is no more noble (and deserving of exception) than wanting to get to 60mph really quickly. It's worth noting that people will still be able to do anything they want even with these new rules in place. Want a fast car? You can still get one. Want a big beefy all-terrain predator with monster lights on the roof? You can still get one. Nothing changes in that department.

On most parts of SFN (the "ordinary science" subforums and sections) opinions are not of prime importance and could even be said to be actively discouraged. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But here in Politics, and in any thread that is focused on ethical or moral decision-making, opinions are the prime currency of the discussion. And opinion is what you were submitting (and using to make your point) when you said this:

I agree that having an opinion does not make one correct. But opinions will be respected here, and not dismissed and "cut through to reality". You can ignore whatever opinions you like -- you don't need to post a message to do that. Shooting the messenger and appeal to ridicule are not logical arguments. Nobody's opinion "stands" as "correct", and the last word does not control the agenda nor does it govern what opinions are allowed on this forum. I hope that we're clear on this. If we need to have a conversation about posting behavior, we will.

And best of all, even in the early days it multitasked. In 1985. I don't think Windows got multitasking until something like 1987 -- version 2? That one feature alone was worth the price of admission. This reminds me of all the flame wars on CompuServe, GEnie and Prodigy over whether the Mac, PC or Amiga/Atari ST would end up reigning supreme. (I think I actually spent over $300 one month on CompuServe charges, back when it was $12.50 an hour!) (Doh, damn this thread and its nostalgia-awakening ways!)

Apparently the GOP decided to drop the idea today. I thouht the quote below was interesting. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSnHdALg23pNqEeutIy0eicw1oHgD98A8HT01 I guess there are at least a couple of Jack Kemp's spiritual successors remaining in the ranks.

As does Sh3rlock's opinion, and my support for it.

I agree with stereologist. Sh3rlock, iNow wasn't attacking all Christians; you've misinterpreted his point. Don't take the thread in that direction, please. I disagree, I don't think his comment is irrelevant, and I think it's legitimate for a member to say what they think the public at large thinks. He wasn't making a factual statement, he was just saying his opinion. Everyone is required to take a deep breath before posting to this thread again. Join me now... in... out... in... out... No passing out on the floor!

Yah BMW stopped selling the 318 in the US a while back. According to the Wikipedia the smallest engine you can get now is the 3-liter 6 with 215 hp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E90) That's part of why we need the new standards. Once a fleet meets the average requirement, there's no need for them to even offer stuff like the above. Pure-market types call that giving people what they want, but it's not as if people write in how much horsepower they want in a textbox. I think if you raise the standard across the board then everyone has to compete with that same variable fixed in place. Cars might get a little slower in general, but fast cars will still be available for people who want them, and those who buy them as status symbols or because that's what came with all the options they wanted will have higher gas mileage instead of horsepower they didn't really need or want.

So having made the assumption that we have institutionalized Christianity in the military, you now move on to place these religious expressions in that context, presuming that that context must be accurate. This sounds to me like an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent You certainly have a right to that opinion. Unfortunately you have to coexist with people who do feel that way, and suffer politicians who address those people as equals (which of course they are). Perhaps you might find some comfort in the fact that politicians are, for the most part, inclusive, not exclusive. They may not be cutting out those who believe in "iron age fairy tales", but at least they're not cutting you out either. So it could be worse.

Thanks for bringing this up. The unfortunate thing about this is that the GOP is actually just getting out in front of what has been a popular public branding amongst the conservative talk radio crowd. CTR listeners are the same people who got so upset about the branding of President Bush by the far left, and now they're doing exactly the same thing to President Obama, and actually feel it's justified BECAUSE of what was done to Bush (in spite of the fact that they did the same thing to Clinton). Around and around and around we go, where it stops nobody knows.

Your links do not objectively document pervasive strong-arming of enlisten men and women to convert to far-right christianity. They attest the interpretations of some observers which have become more frequent in recent years. How accurate these claims are remains to be seen. I do think that's an issue that merits investigation. I don't see any evidence that these years-old cover sheets, with no context, are an example of evangelism within the ranks. Maybe it'll become more clear it Bascule accuses me of covering my ears again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Agreed.

Endorsement implies a call to undertake a specific action (e.g. "join my church"). Where is such a call? All I see here are a bunch of quotes with no context whatsoever. No "meet me at 1st Baptist on Sunday", no "pray hard or we all die", not even "pray immediately or be fired". At worst it's just "I pray that the wrath of god is going to fall onto those a-holes". Was there anyone in this country right after 9/11 who DIDN'T want the wrath of god to fall on those a-holes? How is that an endorsement of religion, rather than a simple expression of desire and motivation? I don't disagree with the point about hostile work environments. But slapping a religious expression on a cover sheet does not constitute harassment. But yes, if there is religious harassment taking place at the DoD then it needs to stop. Period.

Yes. No they don't, they reflect a belief in iit. That's a completely different thing from endorsing it.

One or more infractions have been issued in this thread. iNow, those are not your determinations to make. Both of you (scrappy and iNow) move on from this now.

Every now and then I sigh and remember how much fun it was to run AmigaDOS.

The news reports I've seen have been saying that it'll be more like 39 for cars. I think the actual announcement is tomorrow, so we'll probably have to wait and see. This follows an earlier move a couple months back to raise it to 35 by 2016. Whatever the details, I think it's a good idea. This will just be a fixed variable and with all engineers working from the same starting point it will be fair to all makers. It's not as if they've never made engines on that basis that before. One article I read said that the average cost increase will be $600 by 2012 and $1200 by 2016. That doesn't seem so bad to me.

Well I'm confused because that appears to be exactly what you're doing in that quote. Maybe you can clarify what you meant?

I was referring to Frank Rich's spin in what you yourself called an op/ed piece. But thanks for playing! The presence of a religious statement in a workplace does not automatically constitute a violation of separation. I think swansont makes a pretty good argument for harassment, but just because someone enters public service does not mean they have to give up their religion. We're not going to haul the president off to jail every time he mutters "jesus christ, not the economy again" under his breath. Sorry to disappoint. These cover pages do not endorse one religion over another. Would you even be making these statements if they included a phrase from the Talmud? I think they're overly dramatic, but I don't see how they can even be viewed as prosyletization in any way. --------- As a side note, it strikes me as both foolish and ideological that part of this thread seems to be a search for religious motivations for the war in Iraq. Weren't there enough non-religious arguments for the war in Iraq that turned out to be bad, erroneous and ignorant? Why do we need to see monsters in the woodwork when there are already monsters in plain sight and full view, ready to be stamped out by better policy? Just because someone makes a religious statement AFTER the rational has been laid out does not mean that religion was an unspoken rational behind the real reasons. And there is no support for that argument in these documents, which reflect a stated policy, not future planning or justification.

Ugh. Thanks for firing off neurons I had carefully placed on the "do not disturb" rack alongside Bee Gees lyrics and the names of every Encyclopedia Brown novel. If you do that again I'm going to post the lyrics to the children's song "The Wheels on the Bus"!

Actually maybe not so funny when you consider that groundwater runoff is now the leading cause of water pollution, according to a recent episode of Frontline.

This is not an appropriate thread start for the Politics board. Closed pending moderator review.

Well that's the "interesting" Frank Rich for you, suggesting a causal link between the mistakes of Iraq and the religious views of the decision-makers. The story even comes complete with a sarcastic smirk. My goodness, it's a wonder more middle-state Americans don't vote for progressive candidates, isn't it? At any rate, I see no violation of church & state separation here. He's right about not being able to put the Bush administration behind him, but of course that's a useful political weapon as well as an obstacle, and Obama has used it as such many times. If he really wants to put it behind him he can start with the White House Press Secretary.

This thread is inconsistent with the purpose of the P&S forum as stated here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=59&a=13

That's not why Cat Stevens wasn't allowed into the US, bombus. He was accused of giving money to Hamas, and later cleared and admitted to the country.

Thanks for that example, john5746. That's a good one because it's such a clear demarcation between the two choices (90% chance of complete cure versus 5% chance of survival). I really hate to see things like that because you can practically predict that that boy is going to grow up hating the law and medicine and science because he'll just think that he was going to be fine had he not gotten treatment. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll learn better at some point. All we can do is console ourselves with the knowledge that at least he'll have that opportunity.