Re: Lance!
From: Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There didn't seem to be much interest here, I thought. I watched the penultimate stage live, postponing a bike ride of my own until I saw the result. Then I recorded the same stage while I was work, just to see if I missed anything. I treid to record the final day, but messed something up. I didn't get to watch any if it, live or otherwise, so I had to content myself with following via web coverage, because my wife's tolerance for sports on TV is measured in nanoseconds. :-) I am glad he won the way he did. He said the same thing, but five straight of anything is great. So many bad things happened, the wrecks, his cold. But he survived. The closeness certainly kept the race more interesting than his past few. I'm hoping he can return to his old form and win his sixth by a large margin. Can anyone believe the sportsmanship shown when he wrecked the second time? I have not heard anyone say that Lance didn't show the same sportsmanship when Beloki crashed, but it was near the end going downhill. If Beloki was okay, he'd have only lost a minute at the most, if that. But I'm sure Lance knew, from his team radio, the he was seriously hurt. Apparently, Lance similarly held up for Ullrich in a previous TdF: "Jan is a good guy, he's an honorable guy," Armstrong said. "He probably didn't forget that when he crashed in 2001, in what appeared to be a serious crash, I told everyone: 'We can't race until he gets back up.' As we say in English: 'What goes around comes around,' and so I appreciate him doing that." _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Bush > _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible > something that would not have been possible without it > - the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was > clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or > in Europe (save England). I completely agree with the above statement. What I have never been able to understand, though, is just whom this war *was* in interest of, other than the Iraqi people that is [and that too when and if the reconstruction is successful]. If any American or British interests were supposed to have been served by this war or if they have indeed been served by this war, I find myself unable to identify them and reconcile the same with the way this war has been conducted. > His ability to do that was > diplomatic skill of the highest order. I disagree here. Imho, the diplomatic skill exhibited by the Bush administration was pitiful. Since the fall of the USSR, the US has been the sole super-power in the world. It was a bare fact, everyone knew it. Post 9/11, you guys had more sympathy and support than you have ever enjoyed globally. Bush not only used it to oust Saddam, the way this war was conducted, he almost used all of it up. That is a failure of diplomacy, not a demonstration of diplomatic skill. The US didn't really need anybody's help and the administration was willing to go in alone if need be. Then where was the need to offend, threaten, insult and denigrate other countries and institutions? I honestly see no evidence of diplomatic skill. What I see is a wasteful squandering of good will and old alliances, for a dubious and uncertain end. Now I don't mind it in the least. I am not American and I am definitely not a supporter of the notion of Pax Americana. But I would have thought the Americans would mind, at least those who *do* believe in this idea. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: > >I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed > >for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists > >are called "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries". > > I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, > Oklahoma City-style > bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. I think his point is that these tactics have been used for ages to express political grievances and attempt a change in policy: attacks on non-combatants, disruption of servics, destruction of public property. And that the way the same are perceived differs from group to group. The Mughals considered the Marathas as terrorists, a lot of people thought they were freedom fighters. Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh were terrorists to the British but we Indians called them revolutionaries then and martyrs today. The last 6 decades or so have seen a change in the nature of terrorism though - the targets are almost invariably non-combatants and modern technology grants them greater capabilities of destruction. > I firmly believe that the next 100 years are a crucial > opportunity to make > the world safe for democracy, as technology gives rogue > states ever greater > potential for destruction. Now is the time to do something about it, > before it is too late. The next x number of years have been crucial ever since the first atomic bomb exploded. And it is always going to be this way. What you say above is comfortable and laudable, but how do you propose to go about implementing it? Who defines rogue states? How do you ensure that they don't develop weapons? What do you do when each rogue state denies your claims and assertions? What organisations and instruments are you going to use to keep a check on what the rogue states are doing? How many pre-emptive wars are you willing to fight? And how many of these wars do you plan to fight in face of international opposition? How do you grade the two menaces of terrorism and rogue states in terms of danger and lethality? The last question is especially important as every pre-emptive war fought to contain a rogue state and make the world safer for democracy would also increase the support for terrorism. At least it will if the US government continues with its current modus operandi. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lance!
Jon Gabriel wrote: > Did anyone else catch his Nike ad? It only ran every 5 minutes during > the coverage. ;) Awesome! I just noticed the Subaru ad, myself. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Life and Death
Doug Pensinger wrote: > > Three weeks ago, for my birthday, my wife and kids got me a little > yellow sided conure (a small, new world parrot). At about 12 weeks old > she isn't quite full grown yet. She was hand raised, and is > affectionate, mischievous, curious, and altogether endearing. As I > write this she is sitting on my shoulder, nibbling gently on my cheek. > She'll eat from my hands, relax on her back while I scratch her neck, or > crawl inside my shirt and stick her head out the collar. When she's > tired, she'll fall asleep in my hands. > > But also as I write, my 13 year old dog Lucky lies in a cage at the Vet > hospital, breathing hard from the fluid collected in her lungs, barely > able to stand or walk, and low in spirit. The Vet says she may have > pneumonia - or cancer in her lungs - the xray is inconclusive. Lucky > has always been a doll. We adopted her from the shelter when she was 6 > weeks old. She and her litter mates were left on a corner in a box, and > might have been destroyed without even getting a chance at adoption if > we hadn't spotted them. She always hated being left alone, and I'm > agonizing over the idea of her staying at the clinic by herself, > receiving the intravenous fluids and antibiotics we hope will restore > her to health. If she has cancer I just want to bring her home and hold > her for a few hours before she passes. She's been such a good dog - > smart, affectionate, playful... > > So new life and the awful specter of death. Does one offset the other? > I wish I never had to find out. I don't know. In June, when we knew I was carrying twins, my parents-in-law came for a short visit. (With them, anything less than a week is "short". Too short, if you ask me.) We discussed the possibility of my needing bed rest at some point to try to help prevent premature delivery. They assured us they could be here within 3 days of our hollering that we needed their help for that. Then my father-in-law went to the doctor about a lump. The doctor set him up with a surgeon, who removed it. Test results said it was some sort of neuroendicrine cancer. He saw an oncologist today, will have all sorts of tests run Monday afternoon, and will see the oncologist again next Wednesday and the oncologist will know just what's going on with him. Needless to say, my parents-in-law aren't available for helping out anytime soon. So when it got bad for me a couple of weeks ago (when all we knew was "neuroendicrine cancer" and that the Really Good Oncologist hadn't had an opening before July 30), Dan called *my* mom. Of course, she's not the one I spent 2 weeks in May whipping into shape. :) (My parents-in-law came for a longer visit then, and it was nice to have them here.) She *is* being helpful, and we're easing her into various responsibilities a bit at a time. So, in the back of my head, I'm wondering if there's a possibility that my father-in-law just isn't going to ever get to see these two new grandchildren in person. And that saddens me greatly. But we're most worried about my mother-in-law; I think my father-in-law can handle his own death a lot more easily than she can. Julia hoping that both of Dan's parents will be able to come for Thanksgiving, and *desperately* hoping that one of his relatives in Austin will be hosting Thanksgiving, because I just can't do it, not even if everyone else brings all the food, not *this* year, and I don't want to have to go to Houston for it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Lance!
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Julia Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:02 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Lance! > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Considering the level of interest shown in the Tour de France when it > > started, I'm surprised to see little or no mention of the fact, now that > it's over, > > that Lance Armstrong won his fifth in a row. This one was more stirring > than > > the previous 4, as his triumph was in doubt until the next-to-last day. > He was > > used to blowing his competition away, and he just could not do so this > year. I > > wouldn't be surprised if he savors this one the most, as it was his > > hardest-earned (except, perhaps, for his first, considering he was just > coming off his > > miraculous recovery from cancer back then). > > I was busy e-mailing back and forth with Kevin about it all, and one of > my friends was calling me every day about that day's stage, except on > the rest days. (Then she'd call me about baseball games.) Kinda weird > now, she hasn't called me in a few days. :) > > I've also been soaking up everything the Austin paper has published on > it. He went to a conference on cancer after he won the Tour, did anyone > else know that? He made some kind of crack about how he wouldn't be > talking much, due to the hard time his 200 friends had given him in the > last 3 weeks. :) Almost every radio show, tv show and article I've read has included his accomplishment (5 straight wins) as something of a footnote. They didn't forget to mention it but didn't make a big deal out of it either. > > Anyone besides me read _It's Not About the Bike_? > It's sitting on my 'to read shelf', which means I'll probably get to it around 2006. ;) Did anyone else catch his Nike ad? It only ran every 5 minutes during the coverage. ;) Awesome! Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Life and Death
Three weeks ago, for my birthday, my wife and kids got me a little yellow sided conure (a small, new world parrot). At about 12 weeks old she isn't quite full grown yet. She was hand raised, and is affectionate, mischievous, curious, and altogether endearing. As I write this she is sitting on my shoulder, nibbling gently on my cheek. She'll eat from my hands, relax on her back while I scratch her neck, or crawl inside my shirt and stick her head out the collar. When she's tired, she'll fall asleep in my hands. But also as I write, my 13 year old dog Lucky lies in a cage at the Vet hospital, breathing hard from the fluid collected in her lungs, barely able to stand or walk, and low in spirit. The Vet says she may have pneumonia - or cancer in her lungs - the xray is inconclusive. Lucky has always been a doll. We adopted her from the shelter when she was 6 weeks old. She and her litter mates were left on a corner in a box, and might have been destroyed without even getting a chance at adoption if we hadn't spotted them. She always hated being left alone, and I'm agonizing over the idea of her staying at the clinic by herself, receiving the intravenous fluids and antibiotics we hope will restore her to health. If she has cancer I just want to bring her home and hold her for a few hours before she passes. She's been such a good dog - smart, affectionate, playful... So new life and the awful specter of death. Does one offset the other? I wish I never had to find out. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 10:15 PM 7/30/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>There is my shot. Where is the British evidence? As is usual in the intelligence business, the British said that they can't reveal their sources so as to preserve their leads. Now what? JDG - Choose, Bob. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lance!
At 09:41 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, you wrote: Considering the level of interest shown in the Tour de France when it started, I'm surprised to see little or no mention of the fact, now that it's over, that Lance Armstrong won his fifth in a row. This one was more stirring than the previous 4, as his triumph was in doubt until the next-to-last day. He was used to blowing his competition away, and he just could not do so this year. I wouldn't be surprised if he savors this one the most, as it was his hardest-earned (except, perhaps, for his first, considering he was just coming off his miraculous recovery from cancer back then). Tom Beck There didn't seem to be much interest here, I thought. I watched the penultimate stage live, postponing a bike ride of my own until I saw the result. Then I recorded the same stage while I was work, just to see if I missed anything. I treid to record the final day, but messed something up. I did breathe relief when the outcome was known, and breathlessly watched stage 13, pumping my own fist when Armstrong came around the corner so quickly after Ullrich got second on the final climb, Lance keeping the yellow jersey. But I'm not one of 'those' fans. The only time I'll flip out is watching the Yanks, or PSU. So Lance won. Yahoo. I went for a bike ride and drank beer that night, but I would have done that if he came in second. I am glad he won the way he did. He said the same thing, but five straight of anything is great. So many bad things happened, the wrecks, his cold. But he survived. Can anyone believe the sportsmanship shown when he wrecked the second time? I have not heard anyone say that Lance didn't show the same sportsmanship when Beloki crashed, but it was near the end going downhill. If Beloki was okay, he'd have only lost a minute at the most, if that. But I'm sure Lance knew, from his team radio, the he was seriously hurt. Kevin T. - VRWC On Monday Letterman had a guy ride from backstage, down the stairs, up the isle and out the back door. He was wearing sunglasses, a helmet, postal shorts and the postal yellow jersey. While the guy had biker legs, he was also fatter then me. It was pretty funny. Dave kept saying, "Yes, that was Lance. He couldn't stop." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > > However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be > 70 > > and > > > working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out > > of > > > bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do > > that > > > now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding > > of > > > those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and > > one > > > word comes to mind. That word is "slavery". > > > > Depends on the individual and the work. I can cite one case that's > > probably *extremely* out of the ordinary where a 70-year-old, laid off > > and eligible for a pension, took the pension and spent the next 10 > > months trying to find *another* job in his field, and didn't admit he > > was probably never going to have such a job again until near the end of > > those 10 months. (And it's not as if he couldn't have afforded to > > retire 10 years earlier.) > > > > Julia > > You misunderstand me. That's not what I am talking about. I would love to > be > working and productive at 70. However, I don't want to be unemployed > becouse > I cost more than some shlup in Indea who will work 80 hours a week for 1/4 > the cost. And what is more, I don't want to work 80 hours a week. I would, > after all, like to be alive so that I can be working and productive at 70. > > How about you? > And before anyone misunderstands me, -NO- I don't want the poor Indean national to have to work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the pay eaither. And -YES- I would like him to be as gainfully employed as me. It's not about US verses Them. It is about keeping US jobs in the US and about rewarding loyal citizens for that citizenship and productivity which has made us greate. If you want one world governemnt then fine, but that should mean that they (that all) should get all the protections we in the us are having taken away from us daily. Until there is a world government Corporations who got where they are through the work of the US citizen should not then be allowed to take those Jobs elsewhere. They recieve tax breakes specificaly becouse they are expected to use those tax breaks to create more jobs here in the US. If instead they create those jobs in other countries, then they are steeling from the US taxpayer. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/29/2003 10:57:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand > by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. > Oh I get it; it went like this. Bush- "Do you guys have information about uraniums sales to Sadaam in Africa?" British - "Yes we have evidence of that". Bush - "Well this is really important because this is the SOU address afterall and my intelligence folks are dubious about this information" British - "Oh, I see you want proof" Bush - "Yes" British - "No problem. We are really really really sure that Sadaam did this" Bush - "Wow! three reallies. That is amazing. I can go to the american public in total confidence. Wait till I tell our intelligence guys that you are really really really sure". What he needed was evidence not assurances. (Really) >There is my shot. Where is the British evidence? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Coffey wrote: > > > However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 > and > > working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out > of > > bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do > that > > now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding > of > > those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and > one > > word comes to mind. That word is "slavery". > > Depends on the individual and the work. I can cite one case that's > probably *extremely* out of the ordinary where a 70-year-old, laid off > and eligible for a pension, took the pension and spent the next 10 > months trying to find *another* job in his field, and didn't admit he > was probably never going to have such a job again until near the end of > those 10 months. (And it's not as if he couldn't have afforded to > retire 10 years earlier.) > > Julia You misunderstand me. That's not what I am talking about. I would love to be working and productive at 70. However, I don't want to be unemployed becouse I cost more than some shlup in Indea who will work 80 hours a week for 1/4 the cost. And what is more, I don't want to work 80 hours a week. I would, after all, like to be alive so that I can be working and productive at 70. How about you? ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lance!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Considering the level of interest shown in the Tour de France when it > started, I'm surprised to see little or no mention of the fact, now that it's over, > that Lance Armstrong won his fifth in a row. This one was more stirring than > the previous 4, as his triumph was in doubt until the next-to-last day. He was > used to blowing his competition away, and he just could not do so this year. I > wouldn't be surprised if he savors this one the most, as it was his > hardest-earned (except, perhaps, for his first, considering he was just coming off > his > miraculous recovery from cancer back then). I was busy e-mailing back and forth with Kevin about it all, and one of my friends was calling me every day about that day's stage, except on the rest days. (Then she'd call me about baseball games.) Kinda weird now, she hasn't called me in a few days. :) I've also been soaking up everything the Austin paper has published on it. He went to a conference on cancer after he won the Tour, did anyone else know that? He made some kind of crack about how he wouldn't be talking much, due to the hard time his 200 friends had given him in the last 3 weeks. :) Anyone besides me read _It's Not About the Bike_? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lance!
Considering the level of interest shown in the Tour de France when it started, I'm surprised to see little or no mention of the fact, now that it's over, that Lance Armstrong won his fifth in a row. This one was more stirring than the previous 4, as his triumph was in doubt until the next-to-last day. He was used to blowing his competition away, and he just could not do so this year. I wouldn't be surprised if he savors this one the most, as it was his hardest-earned (except, perhaps, for his first, considering he was just coming off his miraculous recovery from cancer back then). Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
> Restrictions on the free flow of information. > The subjugation of women. > Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure. > The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization. > Domination by a restrictive religion. > A low valuation of education. > Low prestige assigned to work. > I'm afraid I can see some of these factors beginning to affect the USA (not all). Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
Jan Coffey wrote: > However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 and > working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out of > bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do that > now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding of > those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and one > word comes to mind. That word is "slavery". Depends on the individual and the work. I can cite one case that's probably *extremely* out of the ordinary where a 70-year-old, laid off and eligible for a pension, took the pension and spent the next 10 months trying to find *another* job in his field, and didn't admit he was probably never going to have such a job again until near the end of those 10 months. (And it's not as if he couldn't have afforded to retire 10 years earlier.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
There are dangers there. Take these seven factors and turn them around. Some of them will not sound so pleasing once you get under the surface and down to the "WHY" the Lt. Cln. addresses. A highly effective society could also emplode with tyrany. What kind of life are we willing to have where we work all the time and never play. What happens when those at the top realize that they can tap and use these 7 failures to their advantage? What happens when all of the -real work- is farmed out to Indea, China, and Mexico? Where will the middle income family be to buy all those electronics and software? If all tangible goods are produced in other countries, how will the Americans afford to buy all that stuff? They Won't but that wont matter to the most wealthy becouse they don't care who buys the goods, just as long as someone does. You may complain and contradict this by saying that it is just like the issue with women entering the workforce. I agree that any subjugation of any group is wrong. And on principle I agree that women should be, and inherently are, equal. However, the emergant property is very troubeling. I do not wish to be 70 and working long hours every day. What kind of life is it where you get out of bed go to work, leave work, come home and go directly to bed? Many do that now, and are proud of it. They are nothing but drones doing the bidding of those who spend most of their day on the gulf course. I look at it and one word comes to mind. That word is "slavery". No thanks! That is NOT Life or Librity, and certainly NOT the persuit of happyness. And due to the very fact taht education in these other places simply is not what it is in the US, you get a lower quality product. You get product that fall apart, or do not work as designed. Or worse only product that has a complexity low enough to be built in a waterfall fasion rather than thought through and perfected. While I personaly agree with the Cln. on every one of the 7 points, the underlying issue (the 8th habit) is much much more troubeling. The 8th habit is [ Intrest by society for the individual to maintain a high quality of life.]. --- Chad Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This paper was written 5 years ago > > The Seven Factors > These key "failure factors" are: > Restrictions on the free flow of information. > The subjugation of women. > Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure. > The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization. > Domination by a restrictive religion. > A low valuation of education. > Low prestige assigned to work. > > > http://denbeste.nu/external/Peters01.html > > > The best quote IMHO: > > "The failure is greater where the avoidance of responsibility is greater. > In > the Middle East and Southwest Asia, oil money has masked cultural, social, > technical, and structural failure for decades. While the military failure > of > the regional states has been obvious, consistent, and undeniable, the > locals > sense--even when they do not fully understand--their noncompetitive status > in other spheres as well. It is hateful and disorienting to them. Only the > twin blessings of Israel and the United States, upon whom Arabs and > Persians > can blame even their most egregious ineptitudes, enable a fly-specked > pretense of cultural viability. " > > > Nerd From Hell > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Near-death experiences (NDE)
--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> commented > on some Near-death experiences (NDE) that they are > > Vehhh-rrrhy Interesting - But Not-Proof > > which I agree with. But the reports are suggestive, > aren't they? As I said - very interesting. And not yet well-researched enough (although I shudder to think of what near-death studies *have* been done by some of the monstrous so-called doctors of some WWII enemies...horrible ). I think the accurate knowledge/memories of where people/objects in the room-of-clinical-death were is the most fascinating (and inexplicable), from a "hunh??" standpoint. > Most of the controversy comes from the definition of > the word `death' > which is "... unconsciousness caused by insufficient > blood supply to > the brain." Under such circumstances brain is still > alive because > non-moving blood has some oxygen left in it; and in > any case, brain > cells without oxygen taken some time to die (but not > very long). Such > a person, is not dead as we think normally of death. > That is why `death' is prefixed by the term >`clinically'. > > "...Blackmore says science can also explain >those tunnels: Electrical brain scans show that in our > last moments, as the brain is deprived of oxygen, > cells fire frantically and at random in the part of > the brain which govern vision. > > "Now, imagine that you've got lots and lots of > cells firing in the middle, towards fewer at the >outside, what's it going to look like? Bright light in > the middle fading off towards dark at the outside," http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/DrJohnson/GMA020108Near_death_experiences.html > > Of course, that means you must imagine > that instead of the > documented *random* neuron firing, you are > positing *coordinated* neuron firing... > > Right. Blackmore is saying that outer cells stop > firing before inner cells. Yes - but that isn't the same as the *known random* firing pattern! > In my own near-drowning, I saw sparkly lights > against a dark-grey > background, which is consistant with a > random-fire pattern > > which suggests that you were not as nearly dead as > some of the others. This was fortunate for you... :) No kidding! I certainly didn't have a calm peaceful moment either - more like "I'm going to ruin everyone's vacation if I die here!" with a few expletives and other scrambled thoughts deleted... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11755611&dopt=Abstract > > "...We do not know why so few cardiac patients > report NDE after > CPR, although age plays a part. With a purely > physiological > explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the > experience, most > patients who have been clinically dead should > report one." > > Alternatively, humans have different responses to a > shortage of oxygen > in the brain. It is already known that humans have > different reponses to other events. And perhaps those who experience these more 'mystical' NDEs have other variables in common that we haven't noticed or discovered yet. > As you say, this is very interesting. But > Blackmore's work and your > near-drowning certainly does fit a `losing oxygen' > model of cells' behavior rather than anything else. Yes, although I think that Blackmore, by positing a more-coordinated firing pattern rather than the documented random one, is finessing the current data a bit. Debbi who actually would have liked to have had such a 'mystical' experience, but in my several brushes with the 'Shadow,' I probably wasn't "clinically dead" - although I wasn't breathing for "a few moments" in at least two, according to eyewitnesses __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge of equines
--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >--- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Someone must have trai- er, taught you well. ;} > > > Aye. I also have a strong self-preservation > > > instinct. :-D > > > >Lead Mare Maru > > > >Frauliching Through Feilds Of Fowlers Maru :) > > > Ah, Fraulein! Holstein, Hannoverian or > Oldenburg? ;) > >Ooh! Bonus points!!! :D > Ha! :) I've forgotten a lot! > >And you didn't say "Schleswiger Heavy Draft," which > >does *not* earn extra points, but does confirm your > training... ;) > ...I used to be obsessed with horses > when I was a kid and started riding at a very young > age Check!!! re: obsession, but didn't get to start really riding until I was an adult. Worth the wait! (Although I'll never be a jumper - if I'd started as a kid I might have had a chance, but I was a dreadful klutz; now I'm merely *slightly* klutzy. ;} ) > >P.S. Oldenburg-Arab cross...the ones I've met are > neat! > > Very cool! :) Have you found anything that stands > out about their personalities? Just curious. The few I've dealt with have charming personalities, a mix of Arab fire&spirit and warmblood calm - inquisitive without being 'spooky'; they are very versatile WRT usage (hunter, dressage, trail etc.) and are quite handsome animals. Here is a local fellow: http://www.manganarabians.com/gallery.html I understand that they are popular in Europe, and 'Arabian sporthorses' are becoming more popular in the US as they are smaller than many warmbloods (which tend to be over 16-and-a-half hands), and are more 'responsive' in the people-oriented sense. Because more and more women are getting into riding, a smaller horse might be better suited - frex I'm only 5'4" and I look rather silly on a 17-and-a-half hand horse! - and most women really want a 'relationship' with a horse rather than a push-button automaton type (IOW difference between a companion vs. a pure working animal). Of course, as this article points out, Arabian ancestry is found in most warmbloods anyway, via Thoroughbred in-crosses if not directly. http://www.superiorarabianheritage.com/cross/cross.htm This 2002 article from _Dressage Today_ has pix, but the tiny font is rather hard on the eyes: http://www.fancierfarm.com/generic63.html Other Arab 'sporthorse' crosses becoming more popular include Andalusian, Freisian, Hanoverian, Lippizzan, Trahkener, Percheron (yup!) and other draft breeds. (Anglo-Arabs (part Thoroughbred), 'National Show Horses' (part Saddlebred), Morabs (part-Morgan) and Quarabs (part Quarter Horse) are already well-established crosses, though not all are 'sporthorses'.) Debbi Ask A Simple Question, Get A Lengthy Answer Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:59 PM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM > > The example that I find offensive goes something like this: > Locations A, B, and C are seperated by great distances. C is much closer to > B than it is to A. At C, there is an observer watching events at both A and > B. At A, an FTL ship leaves heading for B. Observer at C sees the ship > arrive at B, and only later sees it leave A. > This is supposed to be a violation of causality. That's not the problem. If two points are spacelike, then there will be a reference frame in which they are simultaneous, many reference frames in which A is before B, and many reference frames in which B is before A. With FTL signals , one can send a signal from from A to B to C, and find that C is timelike with respect to A, and is before A. In other words, a transmitter can send a FTL signal to a receiver/transmitter pair, which sends another FTL signal to a receiver attached to explosives surrounding the origional transmitter. This allows the transmitter to be blown up via a signal that was sent after it was blown up...but since it was blown up, the signal wasn't sent, so the transmitter was blown up, so the signal wasn't sent...etc. > I don't see how it could be. Its just an optical illusion since events for > the ship follow the normal linear progress of time (exempting local > relativistic effects). You have to remember that all reference frames are equally valid in SR. A spaceship traveling at .99c with respect to the earth would see time slow on the earth; as we would see time slow on the spaceship. > So when I see causality being invoked, I look for an opportunity to find > real reasons why causality must necessarily be preserved. I hope my example helped. There is another way that involves rotations with analytical geometry. Put all space axis where the x axis usually goes, and time where the y axis usually goes. Changes in velocity are represented by a rotation in coordinate systems. So, time > > > > > I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect. > > > *That* is quite easy to understand. > > > And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no > > > privileged frames or points of view. > > > > > > But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an > > > underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally > > > unobservable? > > > > It could. But, the problem with that is, if you allow real, > unobservables, > > with no addition to the predictive power of the theory, then you open > > things way up. > > Is that necessarily a bad thing? Yes. One could have a zillion models, and no way to distinguish between them. >Has it never occured in the past as part of > a workable theory? No. Workable new theories have different preditions for experiments than the older theories. > Just a history question mind you! > > As I said before, with that sort of latitude one could > > resurrect the aether. Indeed, with that type of latitude, I could > generate > > a geocentric universe. > > > > That would falsify the theory wouldn't it? Not really. Its straightforward to have a coordinate system that rotates with the earth. One would just have to look at the terms that came from the traslation from an inertia coordinate system to a rotating coordinate system. Let me give a simple example of this. We know that centrifical force is a fictional force. I could make it a real force, but add complications. Lets assume that a system rotating with the earth were called fixed. A real centrifical force would be defined. When one rotated in one direction it would keep on increasing. When one rotated in the other, the force would decrease to zero, and then start increasing again. Obviously, this is complicated, but if one is allowed to introduce real complications with no additonal predictive value, than one > > > > That makes sense since observation would by itself change the signals. > That sort of reminds me of some things I've read concerning "Anthropic > Principles". Its more complicated than that. Simply assuming that unseen values exist apart from observation, and assuming that the know laws of physics are not secretly violated, one gets the wrong answer. > > > > > And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not > > >worked, perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might". > > > > But, the simpler approach worked. > > So, is TI a dead issue? For the most part. MWI tends to have more support, but I'm not sure how many folks really believe in the infinity of Robs and Dans being created every annosecond. > > Detailed predictions have been verified, > > to many significant figures. So, why add metaphysical baggage? > > Understandable. > > > > > > I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how
Re: Harry Potter 5 (no spoilers)
Tom Beck wrote: In general, I think, Rowling does much better with her good guys than with her villains. A lot of this is simply the context the books are written in - it is entirely from Harry's perspective. I can't think of any narration that occurs outside Harry's observation, and Harry only associates himself with the good guys. Draco, Dolores, Lucius et al probably have quite interesting multi-dimensional lives, but Harry never sees any of that because of his limited contact with them, whereas he has deep and meaningful discussions with the good guys on a regular basis. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:28 AM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM > > > > > What I have a hard time understanding is the (real long term) problem > with > > "backwards in time signals". > > I see it repeated that you cannot violate causality, but most of the > > examples I've seen given (perhaps they were oversimplifications) seem to > > illustrate what amounts to an optical illusion. (In discussions about > FTL) > > The TI interpreation has real, not illusionary signals coming back from the > effect to the cause. In principal, these can span billions of years. Yeah, I understood that the first time actually. What I was trying to convey was that I question the validity of the "absolutely no violations of causality" axiom , at least the way it has been presented to me in the past. The example that I find offensive goes something like this: Locations A, B, and C are seperated by great distances. C is much closer to B than it is to A. At C, there is an observer watching events at both A and B. At A, an FTL ship leaves heading for B. Observer at C sees the ship arrive at B, and only later sees it leave A. This is supposed to be a violation of causality. I don't see how it could be. Its just an optical illusion since events for the ship follow the normal linear progress of time (exempting local relativistic effects). Its possible that this is supposed to be a metaphor for some other type of event, but it was never presented to me this way. It was presented as evidence of why FTL is impossible. FTL may be impossible, but not for this reason I don't think. So when I see causality being invoked, I look for an opportunity to find real reasons why causality must necessarily be preserved. > > > I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect. > > *That* is quite easy to understand. > > And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no > > privileged frames or points of view. > > > > But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an > > underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally > > unobservable? > > It could. But, the problem with that is, if you allow real, unobservables, > with no addition to the predictive power of the theory, then you open > things way up. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Has it never occured in the past as part of a workable theory? Just a history question mind you! > As I said before, with that sort of latitude one could > resurrect the aether. Indeed, with that type of latitude, I could generate > a geocentric universe. > That would falsify the theory wouldn't it? > > > > And that, like in most of the QM I have read, observation would change > >those signals, therefore they would be inaccessible? > > Not really. The signals have to be hidden, or else we would see violations > of otherwise well verified laws of physics. > > > I guess my real question is "why cant there be a channel for backwards in > > time signals?" > > There could be. There also could be a lot of other things. One thing that > typically identified realists is that they were loath to accept unseen > things that had no visible tracks. Part of the theory of these hidden > variables is that they had to forever remain hidden. > That makes sense since observation would by itself change the signals. That sort of reminds me of some things I've read concerning "Anthropic Principles". > > > > And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not > >worked, perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might". > > But, the simpler approach worked. So, is TI a dead issue? > Detailed predictions have been verified, > to many significant figures. So, why add metaphysical baggage? Understandable. > > > I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how it differs from > > relativistic theory. > > I can repost some of my several years old discussions of spacelike > correlations, if there is an interest. > That would be nice. My knowledge of physics resolves to related and isolated factoids. There are plenty of fundamentals that I am missing. I just gather them up as I go. xponent Ignorant But Interested Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The seven habits of highly ineffective societies
This paper was written 5 years ago The Seven Factors These key "failure factors" are: Restrictions on the free flow of information. The subjugation of women. Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure. The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization. Domination by a restrictive religion. A low valuation of education. Low prestige assigned to work. http://denbeste.nu/external/Peters01.html The best quote IMHO: "The failure is greater where the avoidance of responsibility is greater. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, oil money has masked cultural, social, technical, and structural failure for decades. While the military failure of the regional states has been obvious, consistent, and undeniable, the locals sense--even when they do not fully understand--their noncompetitive status in other spheres as well. It is hateful and disorienting to them. Only the twin blessings of Israel and the United States, upon whom Arabs and Persians can blame even their most egregious ineptitudes, enable a fly-specked pretense of cultural viability. " Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Remonder
This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time, so it started a little over three hours ago. There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help getting there: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words > At 12:18 AM 7/30/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >> Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand > >> by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. > > > >Which British? The worker bees, or top management. > > So, your position is that if you had been running the Bush Administration > in this situation, you would have gone over Tony Blair's head and directly > to the underlings? > > Uh, its a nice thought, but it strikes me as impractical. No, that's not what I said. I said, that the reasonable thing was to have consultations between the intelligence experts. I know that, before Afganistan, the US presented its evidence to NATO members intelligence communities. Even without revealing sources, it would make sense for the US and GB security folks to cross check each other's work. As administration officials and supporters are now saying, intelligence is a murkey business. The words "have learned" deny the murkeyness. They should only be used when reasonable knowledgeable people concur on the certainty of the statement. Given the fact that people in the British intelligence have indicated that Blair overstated their case and the fact that people in the US intelligence have indicated that Bush did; the most logical conclusion is that Bush and Blair, together, got more certainity out of the intelligence than was there in the first place. > >But, it definately appears that their assessment of the WMD was wrong. It > >is hard to imagine hundreds of tons of deliverables, 45 minutes away from > >delivery that were quickly hidden or taken into Syria without us being able > >to trace them. > > Which is information that was not available to Bush at the time. But, the information that was available to Bush was much more sketchy than he let the American people know. > >My suggestion for the proper action for Bush > >seems clear to me. > > Is that suggestiong to admit any information for which there is uncertainty? No, to acknowedge that because you know something is true in your heart, it doesn't mean that you have conclusive evidence. Indeed, we can see Bush origionally using words that properly reflect the uncertainty of the intelligence and then switching language as he felt the need to make a stronger case. The leaders of democracies are in a position where they have access to information that cannot be made available to everyone. They have a tremendous responsibility, when they summarize the information, to do it as well as they can. Overruling their own folks to make unwarrented statements of certainty is not living up to that responsibility. Bush misrepresented the intelligence he had and it came to bite him when the reality appeard to be at the lower end of the range of possibilities. In short, if he used words like "the British have received information that leads us to believe that Hussein be trying to obtain uranium in Africa." then it would have been OK. But, that doesn't have the punch that the White House felt it needed. So, he overruled people in order to get the wording he needed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
tech help
Is there a header tag to mark special subjects? I thought there was, but cannot think of it. I want to know of any tools that can capture ActiveX commands or hidden JavaScript. It's nothing bad, and I won't use it myself, but I want to see how someone is doing what they are doing with a web page. I can do the view source thing, but that isn't where it's at. The web page I view, when I click a spot it does something then goes back to the same page again. I want to capture what happens between the loads. Sorry I can't explain it better. Kevin T. - VRWC Off to work, late again ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter 5 (no spoilers)
Jim (I think) wrote: Of course, I'm about the only person who liked Luna Lovegood among people I;ve talked to, so what do I know? :) Jon replied: I like Looney too. :) Me Too (tm)! Reggie Bautista No Value Added Maru _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter 5 (not really spoiler free anymore)
Jim wrote, re: Snape: >>Keeping up appearances, I imagine. He uses Occlumency to hide his >>true feelings from Voldermort, and favors Slytherin to demonstrate >>his continuing loyalty. Or at least that is my theory. I replied: >Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? I hadn't thought >about that. Jim responeded: That's not really how I thought of it, Reggie. I was looking at it more from a standpoint of what if that little prat Malfoy tells Daddy that Snape is acting funny? It could draw suspicion. Ah, ok, that makes sense to me. >And it may be that he really doesn't see the problems with the >students in Slytherin (or with most of them, anyway); >Also, maybe Snape feels that Slytherin is a valid choice of house >(as Dumbledore must also feel, since he hasn't gotten rid of >Slytherin house), and why not have some loyalty to your own house? That's probably also part of it. And of course sticking it to Harry and the Gryffindors is always a big bonus, I'm sure. I really like the twist that Harry's dad was not exactly a likeable guy, at least with regard to how he treated Snape. It finally explains Snape's attitude toward Harry, which I always thought was a little weird given that Snape was supposed to be one of the good guys. Harry got a lot of rude awakenings in this novel, finding out about how his dad and Sirius used to act, losing Sirius, Dumbledore acting in ways he didn't expect (although with a nice turnaround when they tried to arrest him), learning (or not learning) how girls act and react when they like someone, etc. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS to prevent these deseases from spreading? No. Actually, we sometimes do, although not for AIDS. It is called `quarantine'. As far as I know, quarantine has not yet been misused for political purposes. A legally similar process, incarceration in a mental hospital, has been misused. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying and competence
[I've been out of town.] On 24 Jul 2003, "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said Honorable, brave men would have attacked military targets This does not follow. After all, the goal in war is to gain an unfair advantage: to win, not to lose. Honorable, brave men do not intend to bring defeat on themselves and their supporters. An enemy decision maker could well figure that in asymmetrical warfare, an attack on a highly symbolic target that kills civilians would would more likely bring victory to him than an attack on an enemy military. (I don't think the Pentagon was the primary target of the third airplane.) However, I do think the decision makers in Al Qaeda made a mistake from their point of view. The US had a choice of two responses to the attack on the World Trade Center. It could flee or fight. It could withdraw from the Holy Land (i.e., from the land of the two holy cities, Arabia), as it had done from Vietnam, the Lebanon, and Somalia when faced with asymmetrical, symbollically managed warfare, or it could fight. The attack resulted in the US fighting rather than retreating. (Also, Caleb Carr has argued that terrorism always fails in the long run, since the terrorized may surrender for a moment, but continue bitter. "The Lessons of Terror", Caleb Carr, Random House, 2003) The question is whether the next stage of US fighting will be done competently. One problem the Bush Administration faces is that to fight a war that involves long times between publically visible action it must organize its support through words. It must be able to say that intelligence indicates that the US government should spend money in Africa that would otherwise not be borrowed. Ideally the Bush Administration will be believed when it says that; but even if it is not believed, the Bush Administration must be perceived as borrowing and spending that money competently. In the past, Al Qaeda has often waited two years or more between attacks. This is a long time for Americans. Indeed, I have heard some Americans wonder whether Al Qaeda still has forces left since it has not undertaken a symbollically significant attack against the US in the last 23 months. There are two issues here: * First, the Bush Administration has often said that Al Qaeda is dangerous. Will Americans continue to believe the Bush Administration? Or will they disbelieve and then be surprised if another attack occurs? As I said, I don't think that many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. However, if Americans stop believing in a President altogether, they may ignore even truths. * Second, Bush Administration attention to Al Qaeda must please its backers and `semi-neutral supporters' since it suggests that Al Qaeda is as important as they hope. Al Qaeda is fighting an asymmetrical war; that is why it attacks symbolic targets and kills civilians instead of attacking the kinds of military targets that might lose it the war. Because of this attention by the Bush Administration, Al Qaeda has not had to make a recent attack in order to carry its symbolic message to its supporters and enemies. (However, from their point of view, I do think Al Qaeda will need to make another symbolically important attack within a year, and perhaps within a few months, to avoid being judged defunct. They can depend on people believing the Bush Administration only so long.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying and competence
[I've been out of town.] As a general rule, as far as I can see, not many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. The practice is expected. But at the same time, a President and his administration are also expected to have a competent strategy. The lies are supposed to advance the strategy. President Bush has a problem: more and more people are wondering whether he and his administration have a competent strategy. In particular, in early May President Bush said that the asymmetrical war in Iraq was over. But that turns out not to be the case. A small number of US soldiers are killed nearly every day: the fighting will not bring a US military defeat but might bring a US political defeat. Look at it like a general who considers his enemy: The then Iraqi government, as well as those who fund other anti-US forces, looked at history: * the US and the USSR won World War II, a conventional war * the US lost and withdrew from the territories of three non-conventional conflicts, -- Vietnam under Presidents Nixon and Ford -- the Lebanon under President Reagan -- Somalia under President Clinton The first conclusion is: do not fight the US in a conventional war; you will lose. Fight the US in a non-conventional war; you may win. The second conclusion is: do not attack conventional US military targets, unless they are easy. If they are hard you may lose. If they are easy, like a housing block in Saudi Arabia, or a ship which you may approach without trouble, then you may attack. The third conclusion is: attack in such a way that you aid your friends and harm your enemies. The fourth conclusion is: change the opinion of US political leaders and their supporters, as with the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These suggest that in Iraq, the enemies of the US planned to carry out an asymmetrical war in which 1. They avoid much of a conventional war with the US. 2. They avoid all but easy US military targets, or let stooges make the attacks and get killed by the Americans. 3. Among their current goals, through sabotage, hurt those Sunnis whom they do not like, hurt (by destroying electric power pylons) the Shiites and Kurds whom they oppose, and arrange that much of the sabotage occurs via looting, such as stealing metal from power lines, so that their friends benefit. 4. Persuade decision makers in the US to pull out of Iraq within the next 10 or 20 years without leaving a government behind it that is as harmless to US interests as West European governments 10 or 20 years after World War II. As Gautam pointed out, the ability of US forces ... to adapt and learn a new strategy has been nothing short of astonishing. which is true. Unfortunately, as Gautam's statement indicates, since the middle of April, US forces have had to adapt and learn, rather than adopt a `Plan B'. I expect US forces to adapt and learn quickly -- that is what the new `lessons learned' programs are all about. Morever, I have learned that some US generals even suggested that the US would need a large Iraqi occupation force, which indicates they were wise ahead of time. The problem is that the Bush Administration does not give the impression that it is fostering and protecting `lessons learned' people or encouraging people with foresight to write `Plans B, C, and D'. For example, in May, the US government hoped Chalabi would take over the Iraqi occupational government. But it turned out that various important Iraqis disliked him and considered him too corrupt. So the US had to design a second occupational government. The new Iraqi Governing Council looks fine to me, but the problem is that it took so long -- it took weeks -- for the US to install it. Honorable, brave and patriotic Americans adapted and learned; but they had no `Plan B' ready to adopt in May. So the question becomes one of political perception: is the Bush Administration perceived as one that can competently carry out the job it has undertaken? Can it pull together a coalition in the US that will last at least a generation? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lying and competence
As a general rule, as far as I can see, not many Americans are bothered by a President who lies on topics of foreign policy. The practice is expected. But at the same time, a President and his administration are also expected to have a competent strategy. The lies are supposed to advance the strategy. President Bush has a problem: more and more people are wondering whether he and his administration have a competent strategy. In particular, in early May President Bush said that the asymmetrical war in Iraq was over. But that turns out not to be the case. A small number of US soldiers are killed nearly every day: the fighting will not bring a US military defeat but might bring a US political defeat. Look at it like a general who considers his enemy: The then Iraqi government, as well as those who fund other anti-US forces, looked at history: * the US and the USSR won World War II, a conventional war * the US lost and withdrew from the territories of three non-conventional conflicts, -- Vietnam under Presidents Nixon and Ford -- the Lebanon under President Reagan -- Somalia under President Clinton The first conclusion is: do not fight the US in a conventional war; you will lose. Fight the US in a non-conventional war; you may win. The second conclusion is: do not attack conventional US military targets, unless they are easy. If they are hard you may lose. If they are easy, like a housing block in Saudi Arabia, or a ship which you may approach without trouble, then you may attack. The third conclusion is: attack in such a way that you aid your friends and harm your enemies. The fourth conclusion is: change the opinion of US political leaders and their supporters, as with the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These suggest that in Iraq, the enemies of the US planned to carry out an asymmetrical war in which 1. They avoid much of a conventional war with the US. 2. They avoid all but easy US military targets, or let stooges make the attacks and get killed by the Americans. 3. Among their current goals, through sabotage, hurt those Sunnis whom they do not like, hurt (by destroying electric power pylons) the Shiites and Kurds whom they oppose, and arrange that much of the sabotage occurs via looting, such as stealing metal from power lines, so that their friends benefit. 4. Persuade decision makers in the US to pull out of Iraq within the next 10 or 20 years without leaving a government behind it that is as harmless to US interests as West European governments 10 or 20 years after World War II. As Gautam pointed out, the ability of US forces ... to adapt and learn a new strategy has been nothing short of astonishing. which is true. Unfortunately, as Gautam's statement indicates, since the middle of April, US forces have had to adapt and learn, rather than adopt a `Plan B'. I expect US forces to adapt and learn quickly -- that is what the new `lessons learned' programs are all about. Morever, I have learned that some US generals even suggested that the US would need a large Iraqi occupation force, which indicates they were wise ahead of time. The problem is that the Bush Administration does not give the impression that it is fostering and protecting `lessons learned' people or encouraging people with foresight to write `Plans B, C, and D'. For example, in May, the US government hoped Chalabi would take over the Iraqi occupational government. But it turned out that various important Iraqis disliked him and considered him too corrupt. So the US had to design a second occupational government. The new Iraqi Governing Council looks fine to me, but the problem is that it took so long -- it took weeks -- for the US to install it. The US adapted and learned; it did not have a `Plan B' ready to adopt in May. So the question becomes one of political perception: is the Bush Administration perceived as one that can competently carry out the job it has undertaken? Can it pull together a coalition in the US that will last at least a generation? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Are the US's Allies? Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: > And despite you snide remarks about '''fluffing up," there is nothing > fluffed up about calling Japan and Australia major players in foreign > affairs. two glaring omissions from Bob's list. Australia a major player in foreign affairs??? Do you perhaps say this because we are loyal lapdogs to the US and so you think this lends credibility to your views, or would you still say this if we opposed the liberation of Iraq? Australia is currently leading a small force to remedy a breakdown in law and order in the Solomon Islands, but at the invitation of the government. This to us is a fairly large undertaking, but on the world scale rather minor. Sounds similar to the requests the US has received to go into Liberia. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:55 AM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM > What I have a hard time understanding is the (real long term) problem with > "backwards in time signals". > I see it repeated that you cannot violate causality, but most of the > examples I've seen given (perhaps they were oversimplifications) seem to > illustrate what amounts to an optical illusion. (In discussions about FTL) The TI interpreation has real, not illusionary signals coming back from the effect to the cause. In principal, these can span billions of years. > I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect. > *That* is quite easy to understand. > And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no > privileged frames or points of view. > > But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an > underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally > unobservable? It could. But, the problem with that is, if you allow real, unobservables, with no addition to the predictive power of the theory, then you open things way up. As I said before, with that sort of latitude one could resurrect the aether. Indeed, with that type of latitude, I could generate a geocentric universe. > And that, like in most of the QM I have read, observation would change >those signals, therefore they would be inaccessible? Not really. The signals have to be hidden, or else we would see violations of otherwise well verified laws of physics. > I guess my real question is "why cant there be a channel for backwards in > time signals?" There could be. There also could be a lot of other things. One thing that typically identified realists is that they were loath to accept unseen things that had no visible tracks. Part of the theory of these hidden variables is that they had to forever remain hidden. > And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not >worked, perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might". But, the simpler approach worked. Detailed predictions have been verified, to many significant figures. So, why add metaphysical baggage? > I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how it differs from > relativistic theory. I can repost some of my several years old discussions of spacelike correlations, if there is an interest. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Empire Of Lies
> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Franks is, I think, a choice that might surprise > people a little bit. I'm quite serious, though. > Tommy Franks, as leader of CENTCOM, led the liberation > of two countries at a cost of less than 500 allied > lives. Where the Soviet Union and Iran were unable to > make progress with years of effort, he won in weeks. > In Afghanistan he smashed the Taliban using > unconventional special forces tactics where the USSR > failed completely. In Iraq he used a battle plan so > daring that Patton himself would have quailed at it - > and won a victory that _Dissent_, a leftist magazine, > said can be compared only to Agincourt, and probably > not even there. If that sort of performance, not once > but _twice_, doesn't get you on the roster of > America's greatest generals, what does? OK. I'm going to tread where I shouldn't because this is an area where my knowledge is sketchy at best but... My first thought when reading the above is "is the war in either Afghanistan or Iraq really OVER?" Sure we've said it is over but there's still a lot of fighting going on and bad guys out there. If I recall correctly (and I might not), the Soviets had great success in the invasion of Afghanistan early on. But it was when they installed their puppet government that they failed. They couldn't pacify the people and make the government stick. We haven't exactly done a stellar job there in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is still early, in both cases, especially in Iraq, but only time will tell how we do at nation-building. The Talliban are still out there; a USSR style failure could still happen. Unlikely, and I certainly hope it doesn't, but possible. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of the > DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years > - how many > occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources? > > I'll give you a hint - the answer is a very round number > so I wouldn"t > count on being able to know when a successful test is > "imminent" if that is your plan. Wait a minute. In another thread, you said to me that the United States would be able to stop every country that wanted to develop nuclear and biological weapons for the next 100 years. Yet here you admit that we have done a miserable job of determining that. And, in fact, we probably can't stop every rogue country from developing these weapons. So which one is it? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
[I've been out of town.] On 25 Jul 2003, "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ... -- intelligence to the president is supposed to be thoroughly checked, not just for accuracy, but also for "spin" and such. I can't say much about who the reviewing parties are, or how many people are involved But it clearly indicates that under this administration, the system failed to operate the way it nearly always has. Perhaps with the media abandoning objectivity and accuracy, most people simply don't realize that the U.S. intelligence system still strives for it, so they don't realize what a fundamental problem this reflects. Nick is right. This is very serious. Suppose the Bush Administration are good guys, as some believe: * then they cannot do a good job if they receive inaccurate information Suppose the Bush Administration are bad guys, as some believe, who however, are not Benedict Arnolds (he was a famous traitor to the US during its war for independence): * then they cannot do a patriotic job if they receive inaccurate information >From the point of view of US citizens, many would say that the best hope is that the President lied in his State of the Union message, not that he or the system was incompetent. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
[I've been out of town.] On 25 Jul 2003, "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? Misinformation has long been an issue. Intelligence services try to plant misinformation in an enemy's mind. For example, in World War II, the Allies set up a complete, fake army to fool the Germans into thinking the attack in Normandy was a feint. Moreover, as a practical matter, intelligence services often try to plant misinformation through an ally, on the principle that such information is harder to check. Going back in time several generations, we can look at what done. Suppose the British informed the US that they had acquired "significant quantities of intelligence" about Stalin's efforts to build and deploy nuclear weapons. The US cannot `verify' the intelligence. What does the US do? I don't know the current procedures, but in the past, the US would have told the British that there are suggestions that the intelligence is misinformation. Certainly, the US would not have called the British liars since the British may have been fooled or their intelligence systems penetrated (as indeed they were). Nor would the US call the British incompetent since they are not. The question is whether they have been fooled or corrupted into thinking that misinformation is information. Nor would the US ignore the British intelligence as questionable, but would investigate it and only discount it if US sources suggested it was misinformation. Nor would the US believe a British intelligence report without supporting evidence, since the US understands how difficult intelligence gathering is. Even if US officials believe that British spies are better than US spies, the US officials know that sometimes the British are misled, just as US spies are misled. No one expects perfection, especially in an area as murky as espionage. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 12:18 AM 7/30/2003 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >> Actually, Bush *did* do that, and Britain said that they completely stand >> by their intelligence with the highest degree of confidence. > >Which British? The worker bees, or top management. So, your position is that if you had been running the Bush Administration in this situation, you would have gone over Tony Blair's head and directly to the underlings? Uh, its a nice thought, but it strikes me as impractical. >But, it definately appears that their assessment of the WMD was wrong. It >is hard to imagine hundreds of tons of deliverables, 45 minutes away from >delivery that were quickly hidden or taken into Syria without us being able >to trace them. Which is information that was not available to Bush at the time. >My suggestion for the proper action for Bush >seems clear to me. Is that suggestiong to admit any information for which there is uncertainty? >If there is >uncertainty, then the statement doesn't belong in the State of the Union >message. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter 5 (not really spoiler free anymore)
> That's a good point I hadn't thought about. Ambition is not, in and of > itself, an evil trait, and it is the one Slytherin most valued. If you can > point those ambitious kids along the right path, you've got a better chance of > keeping them from the Dark Arts than you would if you sent them off on their > own. > The trait that Slytherin most valued was purebloodedness. Ambition was a distant second. As I said, Rowling tends to write her good guys much better, much more nuanced and variegated, than her bad guys, who all tend to have unitary motivations and never change. Draco Malfoy is the prime example, but most of her Slytherin students are the same: just plain scum. My problem with Snape is that he does not appear to have any negative feelings towards his own house, even though Slytherin house produces Death Eaters, whom he cannot stand. You'd think he would at least appear conflicted, even if he had to dissemble. He certainly never seems to be even trying to nudge them back away from the path of evil - which he should know better than anyone how tempting it is and how likely it is that some of the Slytherin students seem to be heading down it. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Harry Potter 5 (no spoilers)
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I have to admit that I _was_ a little surprised by who > died. I thought right up until the final battle that > it would be Hagrid - and by the time the battle > started I was too caught up in it to even remember > that someonme was supposed to die. I agree that it > didn't, for some reason, have much emotional resonance > for me either - not the death, anyways, although much > else that Harry goes through does, often enough. SPOILERS! SPOILERS! SPOILERS! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought the choice of who would die became obvious soon into the book. The character suddenly started displaying emotional imbalance, was removed from action, every indication was given that Harry himself preferred to keep this character at a distance...Rowling left no reason for the continued existence of this character. If that didn't make it obvious enough, there was that grating ploy, that pathos inducing gift, accompanied by a portentous message. She had actually made it so obvious that I would have been surprised had anyone else been killed. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 08:06:22PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:18:22 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > > >But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they > > >are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their > > >anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do > > >anyways seems to accord precisely with this. > > > > Do you feel more comfortable (or safe) never asking this question? > > What question? There isn't a question mark in the above statement. I think he meant the question "why do they hate us" or something like that. His implication is that you haven't thought about it because it makes you uncomfortable. Sounds like he lives in the same world as David. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
Jon Gabriel wrote: > >You deserve a medal for reading Ann Coulter on a regular basis. :) > > LOL! I didn't buy her books though. Don't blame you - I was gifted one of her books years ago. *shudder* I had to make it disappearit was polluting the other books on my shelf. > She is just vile, isn't she. :( I find her opinions vile and yes, she does seem somewhat strange. > I'm waiting for her to come > out with a > book honoring Hitler and Goebbels for their tireless work at > population > control. *sigh* I wish anticoulter.com was still being > updated. I miss > that site. *L* Unfortunately, I don't have to access any particular sites to read praises of Hitler et al. The RSS idiots keep on extolling them every so often > >Ritu, who spaces out Varsha Bhonsle's columns over weeks and months > > Thank you! Until today I'd never heard of her. Just spent > half an hour > reading her columns on rediff.com. I don't agree with her > opinions and > conclusions about Muslims (in general, not just in India) but her > perspective is... interesting. I *can* see why you wouldn't > want to read > them all at once though. *chuckle* She used to make me almost physically ill. Her prejudices are loathsome [and she does have it in for the Muslims], her language and similies can be vile, her attitude is needlessly confrontational...but every once in a while she makes a good point. And besides, you need to know how the other side thinks. She has a distrust of anyone who doesn't automatically condemn Muslims. If you write in to comment on her articles [that sounds nicer than criticise, doesn't it?], she actually makes you go through a her own personal bs detector test before responding to what you have written Methinks she and Ann Coulter would have a lot to talk about... Ritu GCU Common Interests ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: > >I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat > every terrorist > >in the world. > > We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of > almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that > this problem is > necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. Which problem doesn't seem necessarily pervasive? The suicide bombers or the terrorists? If you are talking about the former, then I can only be grateful that the idea hasn't found *too* many takers outside the mid-east. But if you are talking about terrorism as a whole, rather than a small subset of terrorists, then the problem is pervasive enough all over the world. In fact, it has been increasing continuously for the last 6 odd decades. India alone has been suffering from terrorism for more than two decades now. To go back to the first question though, no, you cannot possibly neutralise/kill every single terrorist in the world. There would always be someone crazy enough to hate to that degree and resourceful enough to access the weapons our species is so good at producing. What you *can* do is make it hard for the nut-cases to get the public support and funds they need to operate. And that is a life-long process. It is not something that would get over in a year or two or even a decade or two. And if this war-time emergency status continues within the US for that decade or two, with suspicion directed towards a group of your own people, public resentments simmering, chances are that you Merkins would be too busy with home-grown terrorism to worry overly much about international terrorism. > >We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke > >or a biological bomb. > > I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US > armed forces are > likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any > likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. *chuckle* What kind of intelligence? The kind that talked of the WMDs in Iraq or the kind that alerted you to what the subcontinent was upto in the late 90s? TWAT lacks many a thing and the list of missing essential items includes realistic aims and objectives. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hello!
In a message dated 7/29/2003 7:24:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Take note of the Return of the King posters now > > appearing in movie theaters. > > > That's not a real suit of chainmaile. Rows of rings > > have been sewn onto something. > > According to the Fellowship DVD special features, the chain > mail is actually made of painted plastic rings, but they do > connect them together by hand, like real chain mail. They may not have had the real suits when the poster was made. There's no standard 4 on 1 pattern to be seen. I also looked to see if they were using two different sized rings. I'll have to go back and take another look. It's a pity that the Arnold crusader movie never got made. The suits were going to be real medieval chainmaile. Made to look like rivited cut strips of metal. Wire drawing wasn't used on iron at the time of the crusades. Chris Gilman, maker of the coins in The Goonies, the half eaten fish in Batman Returns, and the spacesuits for both Deep Impact and Armageddon, had a method for stamping a false rivet head onto the rings. Ah well... William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
