JohnB

Frankly I still don't see the problem. Warships have Chapels and Chaplains, in fact virtually all military units have Chaplains of one type or another. This being the case, why is there such a cry if Biblical quotes turn up at higher levels? There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Once this statement is understood, it becomes easy to see that military service will always have some form of religion tied to it. Like it or not, them's the facts.

One thought. A major increase in efficiency can be made without new designs or additives. Merely changing the tool heads on the lathes and mills more often gives an improvement. The first engine off the line with all new cutters is a superior engine, it has more power and better fuel economy than later ones, it also lasts longer. As the tool heads wear down the engines become more and more out of line, out of balance and out of true. Blueprinting and balancing allowed me to get 45+ MPG out of an inline 6 cyl 173 cu.in. more than 20 years ago. (The engine was made in 1972.) So development in improving the machining of parts would go a long way towards meeting milage targets.

Assuming they are in fact real. (Are we really going to use a "Style" magazine as a reputable source?) Bascule, what exactly is wrong with trying to find relevent and inspirational phrases for the covers of reports? I just don't see the problem. Who should he have quoted, Mickey Mouse?

I think I recognise the cameramans voice. He's the Wounded Stormtrooper.

I'll do it for only $5 each.

Incorrect I'm afraid. Your option 1 means a designer was not involved and option 2 means that a designer was involved. At the base level' date=' there are no other options, it's really a Yes/No deal. That's what I meant when I said that the [i']methods used [/i]were a different question.

My point was that it doesn't matter if it's 2 deaths or 2,000. The principle remains the same. Institutionalised torture is banned by civilised nations, including the US. Flat out wrong. A President can give an illegal order, just as Congress can pass laws later found to be unconstitutional and also wrong. The argument "It can't be illegal because the President gave the order" is just as logically bankrupt as "It must be right because the Pope said it". Are you replacing Papal Infallibility with a Presidential one? From the Wiki link; So you think those who committed the acts deserve mitigating circumstances and you appear to have no interest in finding out who actually gave the orders. The "subcontractors" also got off scot free. "Subcontractor". Isn't that a nice term? What a land of opportunity America must be. A place where even out of work torturers can get a job "subcontracting" for the US government. Doesn't that just make your heart fill with pride? Pity your troops were doing it to civillians then, isn't it? So the difference between you and those you are fighting is.......... Um, You are better dressed? It's not much of an improvement if you are going to use 16th Century interrogation techniques. The Ideal. Reality. Reality. Reality. It might surprise you to find out that we don't know. What we know is that the US will act in it's own percieved best interests and if that means throwing somebody else to the wolves, then so be it. (There is nothing wrong with that BTW, every nation acts in it's own percieved best interests. It's a fact of life.) jackson, you have a deep belief in the values of your nation, values which I happen to share. The America you believe in is worth fighting for. But if you are going to excuse those who order or commit atrocities, then the America you will get won't be the one you want it to be. If we let our standards slip down to their level, we have lost the battle for we will be just like them. And just so you know, I'm not some politically correct peacenik. I've worn the Dark Green.

Remember that the child would not have been taken in the first place unless there was proof of abuse in the first place. Quite often there is a history of violence or drugs in the household. How much extra information do you think they need? The information shows the child to be in danger. The belief that once returned the child will not be in danger is at best, wishful thinking. So why not go the whole hog? You want people to bear responsibility for their beliefs, so why only go after one type of belief?

ParanoiA, one thing to keep in mind is that we're not talking about individuals acting alone here. We are talking about officially sanctioned torture. So is it clear where the US stands? Do US citizens condone officially sanctioned torture of accused persons or not? Remember that the vast majority of detainees had not been convicted of any crime in any court, they were merely accused. People do horrible things in combat, that's just how it is. But a prison is not a combat zone, the same rules don't apply. there might be sand and sweat, but the bullets aint flyin'. Interesting idea. So your argument is that high school dropouts in the US have no idea that torturing people might be somehow "wrong"? Is there something so rotten in the core of US culture that it's people don't understand that torture is wrong from an early age and actually needs orders not to do it? Fascinating. Which goes to show that in your opinion, a General has less balls than the average grunt in the field. Except that the accepted practices in all civilised nations is that "I was following orders" (generally known as the "Nuremburg Defense") is not a defense. I will reluctantly accept that it may be a mitigating circumstance when it comes to sentencing, but not guilt. Inmates died. They weren't "kept awake", they had the sh*t beaten out of them and then hung in chains where they died. Is this sort of official action acceptable to you? If so, how many have to die before it is not? Where are you going to draw the line? Because you have to draw one somewhere, you know that. Where is it and how do you justify it? Your position puts you in a very dark dilemma. A last point. The US has a large number of very brave and capable men and women risking their lives to protect your society. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the society they appear to be protecting is worth it. Is a society that sanctions people being arrested, beaten and killed while in custody worth protecting? IMO, such a society is not worth one drop of blood from a single serviceman.

Do you think this number is more or less than the number of children killed because some psychologist believed the child was "safe" if returned to their parents? I mean, if you're going after people for acting on "wrong" beliefs, why not go the whole hog?

I know what you mean, but it's not actually all that clear, is it? Just using Wiki for the basics. My Lai. 347 to 504 unarmed civillians murdered. March 16, 1968. 26 soldiers charged. 1 convicted and served 3 years of his life sentence. No penaties to the military commanders who actively tried to cover up the massacre. Earlier this year threads were started against the use of WP munitions in Gaza by the IDF. This was deemed close to a war crime. Yet the use of WP munitions in the same or very similar fashion by US forces during the second battle of Fallujah didn't rate a mention. Unfortunately the position of the US on some matters is not quite as clear as it perhaps should be. I happen to be one who thinks that most Americans are fair minded and actually believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. That they are honestly appalled when their own do something disgusting. However, you have a system that gives many a free pass. jackson, you might believe that "following orders" is a defence, but Australia certainly doesn't. Section 11 of the Crimes (Torture) Act states; For the US, I found this report. http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf Warning: 16 meg pdf. I haven't read it all yet, but it appears detailed and interesting. America is a ratified signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. America did have reservations, none of which I can see absolves anybody: Regarding Section 1 which says; Reservation: Those are the words of the US Senate. A public official who has prior knowledge of the intention of torture has a legal responsibility to prevent it. Sounds like there could be court cases after all. A full list of the US reservations (and everybody elses) can be found here.

Not when the power to the towers goes out. Found out the hard way on that one.

NO! If those who give the orders are not accountable, then disaster follows. If someone has the authority to issue orders, then they are responsible for the results of those orders. If the orders are illegal, then criminal charges should follow. Likewise those who offer advice must be aware that there may be consequences if the advice is followed. However, charges for bad advice is a bit much unless such advice was intended to facilitate illegal acts or to circimvent the law. As for those who follow those orders, trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo settled that particular question. The defense "I was following orders" is no defense, not then, not now, not ever. Giving exemptions for giving or following illegal orders will get the US (and any other nation) nothing but more My Lais. People must be held accountable for their actions, without exception. For laws to work, nobody can be above them. Ever.

God save us. DNA is a version of Windows?

I'm not a fan of these things myself, but if you're going to castigate the girl at least get what she said right; I see nothing there about; or She is saying that that is how she was raised. That's what she said, and all she said, "natural" didn't come into it. I note that the "judge" involved called her a "dumb b*tch" for her answer. I also note that by following the links from the original one and reading the comments, most people are supporting her. (Although many do point out that she didn't directly answer the question.) Many do not agree with her opinion, but they support her right to have that opinion, without penalty. I came across this youtube vid that shows Barack Obama giving exactly the same definition of marraige; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5tZbga2Iz8 So why is the girl copping all the flak?

ParanoiA, I think you misunderstood what I meant. The relationships between people and organizations are defined by the terms they use. Companies have clients or customers, clubs have members but only political groups have citizens. There is no limiter because the word citizen describes the type of relationship, not it's extent.

The idea was never to differentiate humans from ghosts, but rather to separate the mundane from unusual. Footage of a figure moving accompanied by IR footage showing warmth is not unusual. "Ghosts" are often identified with "cold spots" so I thought that footage of a figure that showed colder than ambient temperature would be unusual and therefore interesting. The figure of a female usher filmed in a theatre at say 4AM is unusual but not necessarily unusual, if you get my drift. She may be the security guards girlfriend dropping in to see him and he prefers her to wear an ushers uniform. Whatever floats your boat. However, the figure of a female usher filmed at 4AM that has an apparent body temperature of say 140 would definitely make her, as the police say, "A person of interest".

jackson, I think it's fair to say that we can agree to disagree on this topic. While I think I came out ahead on points, I'd like to thank you for your comments. It's nice to see that a topic can be debated from widely different viewpoints without descending into insults and the like. You are a respectable and honourable debating opponent. Thank you. A thought that occurred to me today as to why I think a wholly private enterprise system won't work well is this. A company exists to make money, the directors of that company have a legal obligation to maximise the profits. The insurance companies don't exist to help Americans pay for their healthcare costs, they exist to make a profit. Almost by definition, the health needs of the citizens must come second to profit making. The thing is that we are talking about the health of the citizens of a nation. Companies don't have citizens, they have customers. As soon as you speak of "citizens", you automatically involve the government. jackson, I take your point about the British system and I've heard horror stories as well. The thing is to look at systems and find out why they went wrong as you can avoid those mistakes. A fully nationalised system is IMO as bad as a fully private system. That's why I like ours, it's a mix of the two. As I said earlier, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on why costs relative to other nations have blown out in the US. And again, thank you for the thoughtful debate. Cheers, JohnB

stereologist, perhaps I didn't fully explain my thought process. When someone claims to have seen a ghost, to me they are making two claims, not one. The claims are that; 1. They have seen something. and 2. That what they saw was a ghost. The experiment I proposed was intended to investigate the first claim only, hence my use of the word "effect". It is intended to find out if there is anything to see, not to investigate the cause if something is seen. The reason for the cameras is that the claim is that something is seen. Sight involves visible light so it follows that a camera should see what a person sees. Constantly recording video cameras would be ideal for observation, what with the current prices for hard drive space, but would also leave the experimenter open to charges of digital manipulation. Old fashioned film would probably be best. You'd use a lot of film though. In the Royal Theatre example, the claim is that a figure of a female usher (apparently solid enough to have people speak to it) is seen. If a figure shows up on one camera but not another then a reasonable conclusion is that something odd is going on. The use of IR cameras is so that if we see the usher on the normal cameras but find the figure has no IR signature, again something odd is going on. (Or we can at least rule out the idea that it was a person.) Note that the experiment does nothing to find the cause of the effect, but merely tries to establish whether or not something odd is going on. To give a variation on the theme. In many cases of hauntings there are reports of locked doors opening "by themselves". This effect is not unknown nor unusual as buildings settle and can change enough that "locked" doors are not as secure as may be supposed. So we know the effect exists, the question is "In this case, is the effect unusual?" So we would place two cameras, one across from the offending door and one looking down the passageway to cover the approaches to the door. We then add a separate locking mechanism, say a hasp and padlock, to the door. The lock must be of such design that no amount of door movement would allow the lock to give, so a simple bolt and padlock wouldn't do the job. Then we wait. If the padlock is seen to open and the door then opens without anybody around, then that would again be reasonable grounds to conclude that something unusual is going on. I've not defined the term "ghost" because I think it's irrelevent to the questions. To wit; a) Is something odd going on? and if so, b) What is going on? To attempt the definition of "ghost" beforehand changes question b) to b) Is this particular thing going on? To me it is far better not to assume anything about the cause of the effect beforehand or you can finish up in the odd situation of; "Yes there is something odd going on, but it doesn't fit my definition of ghost." A not particularly enlightening result. By not assuming a definition of the possible cause, we may find that through further experiments we can arrive at an accurate definition. If, for the sake of argument, my supposition that they are recordings was shown to be correct, then after a series of experiments we might arrive at the definition: "A ghost is a recording of a place, person or thing that is recorded on medium "X" under certain conditions and is replayed when conditions "A", "B" and "C" are satisfied." This type of definition gives us someplace to start and some things to continue on with. The idea is to keep asking questions and then arrive at an answer rather than assuming an answer and then looking for ways to back it up. (Although we might have to make some guesses along the way.) To go back to the usher. Let's say the visible light cameras do see her and the IR ones don't. So we know we haven't filmed a human walking around. We have a supposition that it might be a recording of some kind. So we keep filming and with a bit of luck film multiple appearances. Even two would help. We then compare the two pieces of footage. If the usher performs exactly the same motions, then the idea of a recording is strengthened, but not proven. If we get a number of identical appearances, then that would be reasonable proof that our supposition may be correct. We may find that after 12 appearances, we have 3 groups of 4 identical sequences. This would again lend credence to the "recording" idea. (If the ushers actions are different in each appearance, or she reacts to things happening in real time, then the recording idea is wrong and we'll have to try something else.) But let's say her actions are identical each time. This leads to two immediate questions; 1. What is the recording medium? and 2. How is playback triggered? So we would put thermometers throughout the area, barometers, gaussmeters, anything we can think of to record the physical parameters of the room when she appears. We might find out that she will always appear when the room temperature is between 15-18 degrees, the pressure is at 900-960 millibars and it's 4 hours after sundown. We could then start to control some parameters and see what happens. Perhaps we can make her appear. At about this point I run out of ideas and hand over to someone else who will be a lot smarter than I am to find out what the recording medium is and how it works. Be all the above as it may, the actions in the first instance would be to see if there is anything to see in the first place. That has to be the starting point, definition in hand, or not. Mate, I used to make equipment for magicians, both stage and close up. I'm very aware of how suggestible people are. You would not believe how simple some amazing illusions are. That's certainly a possibility. Part of the problem is the divide between "believers" and "non-believers". The believers want to believe and will often adopt anything (no matter how minor) that might strengthen their belief, while non-believers will jump at any chance, no matter how remote, that the "evidence" is flawed or faked. It's about individual belief systems and unfortunately "truth" is irrelevent to personal belief systems.

jackson, I realise that ther are many different facets to the American society. The big thing here is to simply ask "Are the people in each State American or not?" Is someone a Texan first and an American second or vice versa? From what you say, it would appear that people are loyal to their State first, and their nation if it's convenient. That's a recipe for disaster. I'm a fiercely proud Queenslander, the only thing I have in common with Victorians is that we both hate Sydney. But I'm still Australian and accept that what is good for the vast majority of Australians will also be good for the vast majority of Queenslanders. So a person who cannot get insurance due to a congenital heart condition is "not playing by the rules"? They have some sort of "choice"? You must be kidding. A friend of mine is about to have a hysterectomy to prevent her cancer spreading. Exactly what wrong "choice" did she make? Come on, she's 28, she must have done something wrong by your arguments. Or did she just break the "rule" about not getting cancer? Under your system she would never again be eligable for insurance because she will have a "pre existing condition". It's not about "cradle to grave" security, it's about showing compassion for people caught by things they can't avoid. It's about realising that someone who is having to face the fact that she will probably never have children has enough on her plate without having the extra worry of how to pay for the operation. Also, as I've said before, our system doesn't cover Dental, Optical or Cosmetic Surgery. Although we do cover reconstructive surgery and some cosmetic surgery if the psychs deem it necessary. "Cradle to grave" security is about the last thing it is. I find it personally amazing that Americans can think the way they do about their own. If there is a disaster anywhere on the planet the US is there as fast as possible to help. You'll divert entire fleets to give aid to striken nations and ask for nothing in return. Yet when it is suggested that the same compassion could be shown to your own people, the cries of "cradle to grave" security arise. Frankly, I don't get it. iNow, thanks for the vote of confidence. Cheers. The Bear's Key, Not a problem. As you might have gathered I'm a great fan of American civilisation. And I will do all I can to help it happen.

I must agree. Both the book and the film are worth the time.

I ignored Russia and China for the simple reason that while both those nations are similar in size to ours, their societies are not. Because of the societal differences between (for example) China and the US, I doubt any comparison would be meaningful. The changes in South Africa probably have more to do with their 21% unemployment rate than providing full service to their people. Actually I would like to hear your thoughts on this, would you care to start another thread on this matter? Well shucks, I thought they were rather good myself. Seriously, from the outside the Federal/State relationship over there sometimes looks really, really strange. Concerning the financial side, as has been shown, everybody else is spending less money than you are. So I honestly can't see how it's not "economically practical". As to the second part, I think you're over reacting. Your proud and individualistic society is already being destroyed by the growing percentage of people whose dreams are being subjugated by the need for insurance. People who are forced to choose their employer or profession not by their own wishes and desires, but by whether or not it provides health cover are not free. They are not individuals, they are drones, serfs. Because of their desire to protect their families access to (company provided) healthcare they will endure indignity and exploitation without complaint. They might be many things, but "proud" will not be one of them. Held hostage by their families health needs, and powerless to do anything about it, they will be happy little slaves. Or Else..... A properly run UHC system doesn't make people dependent upon the state, it frees them. It allows them to experiment and try new enterprises, secure in the knowledge that even if they do stuff up "Little Jimmy" will still have access to good healthcare. It's the states way of saying "Go on, try. If you fall it will be from your own mistakes (which are your problem) and not from sickness, disease or medical bills." How many brilliant chemists, physicists and researchers have you lost because they couldn't afford to study and pay for insurance so they took a job instead? Could one of them have found the cure for cancer? We'll never know because your system won't let them try. I urge you to consider the words of your own Pledge of Allegaince: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." Before you continue to let petty State politics divide your nation to the detriment of it's people. Others have said it before me; Liberty includes freedom of choice, something that fewer and fewer Americans have. I would say that your current health care system is "destructive to these ends", wouldn't you? The choice of action is, as always, in the hands of the American people, and I, like Senator Carl Schurz before me have faith in you. I finish with this quote from the Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899; I think he would agree that the way you are heading is wrong, and should be put right. Cheers.

Firstly I'm wondering if there is some miscommunication. It has occurred to me that "repeatable" may have two meanings. 1. Produce the effect on demand. 2. Anybody using the same equipment would observe the effect. I've been operating under the assumption that option 1 was meant, hence my insistence that the co-operation of the entity was needed. However, if option 2 was meant, then co-operation is unnecessary and I withdraw the stipulation. On that basis, and again using the Royal Theatre as an example, I would suggest as a first experiment; At least 2 pairs of cameras focussed on the area that the "usher" is most often claimed to appear. One camera in each pair is for visible light and the other is IR. Assuming a positive result, as in the "usher" caught on camera on a number of occasions, I think that would suffice to show the effect is probably real. It should also be repeatable by anyone using similar equipment. iNow, would that type of experiment satisfy your needs in the first instance?

You perform experiments with the consent and conscious participation of those entities. You are not trying to prove they exist. An experiment such as you require would need three things to be successful; 1. The entity has to exist. 2. It must be conscious. 3. It must be willing to co-operate and participate. If an entity exists but isn't conscious, or if conscious is not willing to participate would not allow for "consistent and repeatable" results. Hence I believe the challenge to be worthless. (That particular one anyway.) How do you have a "controlled" experiment when you can't control the participants? To illustrate the point. I doubt that there is doubt that I exist, but would you care to come up with an experiment that can be performed here that would give "consistent and repeatable" results to prove the fact? How can your experiment work if I choose not to participate? stereologist, I have at times considered the question. My conclusions are simple; 1. It is almost impossible to create a repeatable (controlled) experiment when you don't control the conditions. Due to the lack of control, even if you did get positive results there is no guarantee that another researcher could replicate your results. Without replication, you have nothing. 2. It is highly unlikely that there is 1 experiment that would suffice. TBH, I think the whole thing has been approached in the wrong fashion. Ghost Hunters are out to prove that "ghosts" exist. But there is no reasonable definition of what a "ghost" is. This lack of definition hampers their efforts. A better approach might go something like this; Stage 1: There is an effect claimed. (People say they've seen them.) So we collect data. If we use Toms example of the Royal Theatre. People claim to see a female usher. Is she seen in certain places? If so, place cameras watching those places. (From different angles) There are a number of possible results, we might; a) See a female usher in one or both cameras. b) See an amorphous blob in one or both cameras. c) See nothing. d) See nothing, but see people reacting to something invisible to the cameras. e) See nothing and see no reaction in people on camera. By controlling the things we can control, (like knowing when the known female ushers are on duty) we should be able to eliminiate spurious positives. Stage 2 depends on the results of Stage 1. Given that the presence of the usher may be random with large time spaces between appearances (Should she exist) we should run the cameras for an extended period, possibly months. If we get consistently negative results, then we can move on to other areas. Should they also give consistently negative results then it would be fair to say that nothing is going on. Positive results (except for result a) reveal a need for more investigation to find a cause. An amorphous blob could be some sort of condensation that people percieve to be the usher. A complete check of the wind currents and temperatures in the area is called for. Cameras that record in IR and UV might be an idea. You'll note that a positive result does not prove the existence of a "ghost", just the possibility of an "effect" that can be interpreted as a "ghost". Result a) is a bit different as in that case we have a recognisable form caught on camera. The next step would be to try all the things we did above to try and find out what are the physical parameters when the effect "manifests". More experiments get added later depending on the results of earlier stages. The difference in the above approach is that it is not trying to prove the existence of "ghosts". The approach is to investigate the claims of an effect and attempt to collect data in the case of positive results. Currently the "theory" of ghosts is based on supposition and belief. It is much better to collect more data before formulating a theory. Either that or just collect the data and follow where it leads. So why hasn't a reasoned and patient approach been followed? Because both sides of the debate want a quick fix. The believers want to find the "one" that proves their case once and for all, they lack the patience for the long term meticulous checking and testing. The sceptics likewise are in a hurry. They will instantly assume that because a photo of a transparent figure could be achieved by double exposure, then that's what it is. It is far easier to believe that everybody else is a fool or cheat than to doubt their own deeply held beliefs. Hence even if the believers took the time to make meticulous readings, the sceptics would not take the time to actually look at them. The argument has always been about the existence of "ghosts" whereas I think it should be about 2 simple questions; 1. Is there an effect? 2. If there is an effect, what causes it? Neither of these questions presupposes what the cause of the effect might be (if it exists) however for some people even asking Q1. is a threat to their belief system and therefore intolerable. Personally I think we will find "ghosts" to be little more than a recording. How recorded and on what medium I don't know. I do know that in all cases I've read about where the ghost "walks through a wall" or similar and a sufficiently detailed investigation can be made, it is found that the area of wall was once a passage or door. This might imply that it is following a path that existed when the "recording" was made. You'll perhaps note that this is a purely physical explanation with no "spiritual" connotations at all. All that is required for my postulate to be possible is the existence of physical forces and processes that we don't yet know about. Hardly an extreme condition. If the effect exists (and I think it does) then all we can do is collect as much data as possible and hopefully work out the "how" and "on what" from there. Saw this after posting. Firstly, how do you talk to it? (Assuming it is a conscious entity?) Secondly, if you are talking to it and expecting an answer, why are you trying to prove it's existence?