Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams, Franklin
Dan wrote: I'm sure that one can deconstruct it to mean anything, but the word "creator" meant at the time "being who created." I'm not really an origional intent guy, but I think using the same mapping of combination of letters onto ideas as they used at that time is really a good idea. In other words, it is clear from his writings that Jefferson was a Deist, not an athiest or an agnostic. Man's rights were God given, in his mind. He considered religeous liberty important because he felt that organizations did much more harm than good when they mucked around with the relationship between man and God. Ah, but they did not have the explanation for creation that Darwin has provided for us so it is understandable that even the most rational humans thought there must have been a being that created us. Furthermore, Websterâs defines a Deist as "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." In other words, the mention of a Creator in the DoI has no religious significance in the eyes of a Deist -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:08:29 +0900, G. D. Akin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Doug Wrote: Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Ah, you're still a puppy :-) George A Woof (cough) woof. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
Doug Wrote: > Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Ah, you're still a puppy :-) George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM > > Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > > > > Scientists zap atom across room > > > > > > > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room > from > > one entangled atom to another. > > > > Dan, have you a link to a better description of what exactly was > accomplished? TIA! Well, I found one that was better, but still very wrong. It was better in that it said "transfer of characteristics from one atom to another. But, it talked about transporting humans, which is impossible without transporting information; which violates the known laws of physics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams, Franklin
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:39 PM Subject: Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams, Franklin > On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:05 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've discussed this before. "Creator" is ambiguous enough to be > considered non-religious, IMO. I'm sure that one can deconstruct it to mean anything, but the word "creator" meant at the time "being who created." I'm not really an origional intent guy, but I think using the same mapping of combination of letters onto ideas as they used at that time is really a good idea. In other words, it is clear from his writings that Jefferson was a Deist, not an athiest or an agnostic. Man's rights were God given, in his mind. He considered religeous liberty important because he felt that organizations did much more harm than good when they mucked around with the relationship between man and God. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington,Adams, Franklin
At 11:23 PM 6/17/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >Yea, and you think that they'd pass some horribly unconstitutional law, >like the Alien and Sedition Act. Which doesn't have nearly the significance of being the very FIRST act of Congress. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: Thus, this Court ruling would appear to jeopardize NPS preservation of religious cultural resources in a number of Parks, included preserved churches in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cape Lookout National Seashore, as well as Native American ceremonial kivas at numerous Parks throughout the Southwest. If it _does_ have considerable historical significance, I would agree with you. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams, Franklin
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:46:05 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A pretty selective sampling there, Doug. It's enough to show that the constitution provided a "wall of separation" in the minds at least some of the more prominent founders. It also neglects the fact, that your reading of the Constitution would make the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional. We've discussed this before. "Creator" is ambiguous enough to be considered non-religious, IMO. It also neglects the fact that the Founders who participated in the very first Congress chose as their first discretionary act the appointment of a chaplain. I find it ironic that you consider Congress' first discretionary act to be unconstitutional - and claim that these self-same founders agree with you on this point. In fact, there was heated opposition to the appointment of the Chaplain, led, I believe, by Mr. Madison, sometimes known as the father of the constitution. That smaller minds prevailed at the time is not an ironclad indication that they were consistent with the intent of the constitution or the first amendment. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
Ronn! wrote: What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television show . . . So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Doug The Final Frontier Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams, Franklin
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams,Franklin > A pretty selective sampling there, Doug. > > It also neglects the fact, that your reading of the Constitution would make > the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional. > > It also neglects the fact that the Founders who participated in the very > first Congress chose as their first discretionary act the appointment of a > chaplain. I find it ironic that you consider Congress' first > discretionary act to be unconstitutional - and claim that these self-same > founders agree with you on this point. Yea, and you think that they'd pass some horribly unconstitutional law, like the Alien and Sedition Act. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
At 07:13 PM 6/17/04, Robert Seeberger wrote: --===2097341068== Scientists zap atom across room http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3816000/3816551.stm Scientists say that they have teleported an atom across a room for the first time. Teleporting is when something is taken apart and sent to another place without any physical contact. ...snip... 'Beam me up' Teleporting was first made famous is an old TV show called Star Trek. Astronauts could be beamed down from the spaceship to a planet's surface. What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television show . . . So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
-- From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:07:44PM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: > No, logic is totally and completely divorced from reality, thats my Of course it is not. People may not behave logically (consistently, predictably, etc.), but the universe does. Actions have consequences, and no matter how much you may want something, if your desire is contrary to physical law, then you lose. There is also a middle ground, sometimes things involving people can be predicted in a broad manner with reasonable accuracy. What crack are you smoking? First off people have roughly 1/2 of their brain devoted to nothing _but_ illogical emotional thinking. In fact it is very easy to unbalance the human brain's thinking with thousands of different drugs/chemicals. If people were acting logically then they wouldn't believe in absurdities, like the Existence of Dog, astrology, or magic. Furthermore physical laws follow mathematical principles not logical principles. Their are many instances where things that happen in physics are not logical at all, like quantum entanglement, where one particle effects the state of another particle anywhere else in the universe; or other affects of quantum mechanics where effects can occur before causes. You should probably get a handle on chaos theory. - "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Founders on Separation of Church and State: Washington, Adams,Franklin
A pretty selective sampling there, Doug. It also neglects the fact, that your reading of the Constitution would make the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional. It also neglects the fact that the Founders who participated in the very first Congress chose as their first discretionary act the appointment of a chaplain. I find it ironic that you consider Congress' first discretionary act to be unconstitutional - and claim that these self-same founders agree with you on this point. John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
I've done some more reading on this issue, and appears that the VFW is 60+ years old, which is interesting since Mojave National Preserve only dates back until the early 1990's. This means that the Memorial predates the National Park designation - although it may not predate federal ownership. What is interesting, however, is that ordinarily the National Park Service is required to preserve all resources associated with a Park - geological, biological, environmental, and cultural. Thus, this Court ruling would appear to jeopardize NPS preservation of religious cultural resources in a number of Parks, included preserved churches in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cape Lookout National Seashore, as well as Native American ceremonial kivas at numerous Parks throughout the Southwest. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM > Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > Scientists zap atom across room > > > > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room from > one entangled atom to another. > Dan, have you a link to a better description of what exactly was accomplished? TIA! Actually, I expected someone to shoot down this story. This proves 2 things: 1 That people don't understand QM very well. (Talking about public knowledge here) 2 People *are* somewhat predictable xponent One For Me Yahoo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > Scientists zap atom across room > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room from one entangled atom to another. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Speaking of Quantum.........
Scientists zap atom across room http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3816000/3816551.stm Scientists say that they have teleported an atom across a room for the first time. Teleporting is when something is taken apart and sent to another place without any physical contact. In the past, scientists have done this to laser light, but this is the first time something solid has been teleported from one place to another. Although this does not mean that we can do the same with humans, it could revolutionise technology of the future. 'Beam me up' Teleporting was first made famous is an old TV show called Star Trek. Astronauts could be beamed down from the spaceship to a planet's surface. Using the same principle, it is hoped that this scientific breakthrough could pave the way for superfast computers, called "quantum computers". These computers would perform extremely complicated calculations, but would be only as small as the size of a sugar cube. xponent Moins Peripherals Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Listref] Aging genes, aging brains
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5170228/ "...After age 40, they found, about 400 genes showed significant changes in how hard they had been working while the person was alive to instruct cells to make certain proteins. Many of those genes were damaged and could not function properly. This gives us a starting point because what weve shown is that theres a genetic signature, so to speak, of this aging process and now we can work to determine how that impacts brain function, says Bruce A. Yanker, Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience at Harvard Medical School. "Slightly less than half of the 400 or so genes including those involved in learning, memory and communication between brain cells were found to be functioning at a lower level, perhaps because of some kind of damage, the researchers found. The remaining genes were found to be working harder after age 40. They included genes involved in DNA repair, antioxidant defense and stress and inflammatory responses. Overall, the findings suggest that the first set of genes had sustained damage that hampered their functioning, and the other genes were working harder to try to lessen or repair that damage..." Mitochondrial DNA damage with aging: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5068186/ "...Researchers describe the study as the first experimental evidence of this theory at least in laboratory mice. They believe the finding could explain how humans age and how the bodys systems begin to misfire, although more tests must bear out them out...In the experiments, the Swedish team used mice bred with a defective version of an enzyme responsible for maintaining mitochondrial DNA...It seems to be a universal phenomenon in mammals that you have this damage to mitochondrial DNA as you get older, said the studys senior author, Nils-Goran Larsson at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. But I and many others thought this was just a secondary phenomenon, Larsson said. I think the importance of our paper is that we actually show these mutations can indeed cause several changes associated with aging... "...But that does not mean all aging is caused by mutations in mitochondrial DNA, said David Finkelstein of the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health...In an accompanying commentary in Nature, George Martin and Lawrence Loeb of the University of Washington said the results are also consistent with the theory that so-called free radicals play a role in aging..." An abstract on aging and mitochondrial genes, with links to definitions and the Aging Research Centre - more technical. http://www.arclab.org/medlineupdates/abstract_8706795.html There are many technical articles about aging accessible from the homepage of this site. A non-technical site is: http://www.infoaging.org/index.html (sponsored in part by Pfizer) Debbi who apparently _is_ cresting the hill, at least according to the first article... :P __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Brin] Monogamy -- addicted to love?
Gene Therapy Turns Elk-voles Into Stork-voles!!! (If we at Brin-L made headers like The National Enquirer... :D ) But this is quite fascinating (and maybe a little bit disturbing): http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/89/100115.htm?printing=true "...researchers say they've found a gene that appears to have a profound effect on the social behavior of animals. The gene, known as the vasopressin receptor, is located in the brain's reward center and may also be involved in drug addiction. Researchers say the findings may help explain the neurobiology behind romantic love as well as disorders such as autism that affect how people form social bonds. "In the study, researchers used a harmless virus to transfer the gene from monogamous male prairie voles, who are known to form lifelong bonds with a single mate, into the brain of meadow voles, who mate with multiple partners and lack vasopressin receptors in their brain's reward center. A few days later, the meadow voles had vasopressin receptors levels similar to those found in the prairie voles. "Researchers paired the animals with sexually receptive mates and allowed them a day to get to know each other before the males were given a fidelity test. Each vole was allowed to wander between his first partner and a new potential mate. The study showed that both the prairie voles and the genetically modified meadow moles huddled close to their original partner while the untreated meadow voles behaved like loners and spent time by themselves... "...Researchers say previous research has shown that these vasopressin receptors may play a role in social disorders, such as autism, that make it difficult to form social bonds. Studies in humans have also suggested that the same brain pathways involved in forming romantic relationships may also be involved in drug addiction. "The brain process of bonding with one's partner may be similar to becoming addicted to drugs: both activate reward circuits in the brain," says researcher Miranda Lim, a postdoctoral fellow at Emory University, in a news release. "Pair bonding in humans is a much more complex process than in moles, and researchers say social, economic, historic, and individual differences all play a role. "Our study, however, provides evidence, in a comparatively simple animal model, that changes in the activity of a single gene profoundly can change a fundamental social behavior of animals within a species," says researcher Larry J. Young, PhD, of Emory University's School of Medicine..." Here is a 2001 technical article from the same group on the same subject (article much longer): http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/21/18/7392 "...In addition, males overexpressing the V1aR in the ventral pallidal region, but not control males, formed strong partner preferences after an overnight cohabitation, without mating, with a female. These data demonstrate a role for ventral pallidal V1aR in affiliation and social attachment and provide a potential molecular mechanism for species differences in social organizationA second [caveat] is the possibility that regions other than the ventral pallidum are involved in the AVP-dependent regulation of social behavior and pair bonding. V1aRs are also found in the amygdala, thalamus, cingulate cortex, and olfactory bulb. Although our results do not rule out an involvement of these areas, they do demonstrate that increased levels of V1aR in the ventral pallidum facilitate partner-preference formationThe V1aR-VP males exhibited a strong partner preference after the 17 hr cohabitation without mating. It is important to note that in previous studies from our group, male prairie voles that cohabitated with a female for 24 hr did form partner preferences if mating occurred, but typically did not if mating did not occur (Insel and Hulihan, 1995; Insel et al., 1995). Thus, it seems that by increasing the density of V1aR in the ventral pallidum, the amount of social stimulation required to form a partner preference was decreased "...This striatopallidal system is an important neurobiological substrate for the rewarding and reinforcing properties of natural stimuli and psychostimulants (McBride et al., 1999). Infusion of psychostimulants directly into the ventral pallidum leads to the development a conditioned place preference for the environment in which the injections were experienced (Gong et al., 1996). Given the abundance of V1aR in the prairie vole ventral pallidum and its role in conditioned place preference, we hypothesize that AVP released during social interactions or mating activates V1aR in the ventral pallidum. Activation of this reward circuitry then reinforces this behavior, leading to an increase in social interactions. In a mating pair, the reinforcement is powerful enough to lead to a conditioned partner preference in the monogamous prairie vole and thereby initiates the formation of a pair bond. The lack of V1aR in the ventral pallidum of nonmonoga
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:39:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > I agree with that if-then statement, but I'm guessing "logical" means > "able to be modeled in some form of logic calculus (paraphrasing > Weinburgs regrets about ethics not being reducible to this.) For the > most part, we've done a very good job describing phenomonon this way. > > In that sense, human behavior is not logical in that basic goals > cannot be deduced through the use of these techniques (as Weinberg > pointed out). But, logic can be used in determining what means are > useful in reaching those goals. IMHO, the basic goals are more > alogical than illogical. I would agree with all of that, although I wouldn't have stated it the same way. Many things about the universe (sans people) can be predicted, and many things about people can be predicted. In my usage in this thread, logical does not require absolute certainty or perfect precision. Your phrase "able to be modeled..." is probably a better way to state my meaning than "logical". Next time, I'll try your phrasing instead! > One other note, I wonder if Andrew has figured out that he led with > his chin by sarcastically asking about Erik's knowledge of QM. Before > I do something like that, I usually will be willing to at least check > the website given in the email I'm responding to, to determine my > opponents education and job. Heh, he'd have to dig a bit since my job doesn't imply QM background, but I think most people who saw on my resume that I had a B.S. degree in physics would figure I knew something about QM. I never made it to QED, though (switched to electrical engineering and solid state physics for my graduate study), so I will defer to you on the unified QM stuff :-) But no matter, I don't think I will be discussing much with Andrew anymore, since he is unwilling or unable to hold up his end of the discussion. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Listref] # of Americans without health insurance
In a quasi-recent post, I'd quoted ~41 million as the number of uninsured; that has risen to 44 million (below the age of 65) uncovered for the entire year of 2003. If the restrictions are changed to 'without coverage for at least one month in 2002 or 2003,' the number nearly doubles to 82 million.* http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/88/100110.htm?printing=true "Nearly 82 million nonelderly Americans -- a third of those under the age of 65 -- went without health insurance for some period of time in 2002 or 2003, according to a report released by the consumer health group Families USA. An estimated 44 million Americans lacked any type of health coverage for the entire year in 2003, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures. This represents a 15% increase over 2001. "Of the 82 million nonelderly Americans that lacked health insurance coverage at some time between 2002 and 2003, two-thirds were uninsured for six months or longer, while more than half were uninsured for more than nine months..." Texas and New Mexico were the states with the worst proportions of uninsured (43% and nearly 43%). *This criterion was stated by a spokesperson from Families USA on one of the early AM news programs (I was up preparing syrup for the hummingbird feeder - it's been unusually cold for 2 days - high of ~56oF yest. afternoon!). This article has a more detatiled breakdown of the worst states: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=534&ncid=534&e=18&u=/ap/20040616/ap_on_he_me/uninsured http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2BE32798 "The study, which was being released Wednesday, found that 8.5 million Texas residents, or 43.4 percent of the non-elderly population there, did not have health insurance the highest rate in the country. Other states where more than 35 percent of people younger than 65 were uninsured were: New Mexico, 42.4 percent; California, 37.1 percent; Nevada, 36.8 percent; Louisiana, 36.2 percent; Arizona, 35.7 percent; Mississippi, 35.1 percent, and Oklahoma, 35 percent... "...The [Census] bureau reported last September that 43.6 million were uninsured for all of 2002..." Debbi Beads, Rattles And Prayer Maru >:/ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:45:17PM +0100, Richard Baker wrote: > isn't logical. (I am well aware that the probabilities themselves are > predictable in principle, but unless you subscribe to a global hidden Which is of course what is relevant, and what I was referring to. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:20:46 -0230, Nick Lidster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Nick Lidster wrote: > > > > > Irans standing power is 912,569 (2004 est.) mixture of all branches, > > > including law enforcement. 3000 troops sure isn't a large force, but > lets > > > not forget that they have an air force as well; > > > > > > mig 29 34 > > > > > > su 2486 > > > > > > f-14 247 > > > > > > f-7 287 > > > > > > f-4 472 > > > > > > f-5 197 > > > > > > rf 4e 32 > > > > > > total 1355 I found still online at CSIS the Military Balance in the Gulf which was produced about a year before my other source, which was another report by Anthony H. Cordesman. Iran's Total Operational Combat Aircraft, all types and quality - 304. It has Iran's High and Medium Quality of air strike craft as: Mig-29...35 SU-24D.30 F-14...60 F-4E...50 His year later report is: Mig-29..25 SU-25.7 SU-24D30 F-14..25 F-4E..66 I won't bother listing the lower quality stuff which he also doesn't bother with in the Military Balance report. I have previously stated my opinion is that he overestimates the combat ready quantities of the American planes, in this case the F-14s and F-4Es. The spare parts source for these planes are their other planes. Later he states that Iran "has acknowledged a need for Western military equipment and spare parts." He may be correct, we sold Iran a hulluva lot of planes they can use as spare parts to keep some flying. http://www.csis.org/burke/gulf/milbalingulf.pdf Iran is one of the countries used to justify deployment of the ABM SDI with some analysts believing iran could deploy an ICBM before 2015. Gary Denton #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 3:45 PM Subject: Re: Request for Proposals > Erik said: > > > You obviously don't understand quantum mechanics. > > Well, I understand quantum mechanics and if "predictable" is a necessary > condition for something to be considered "logical" then the universe > isn't logical. I agree with that if-then statement, but I'm guessing "logical" means "able to be modeled in some form of logic calculus (paraphrasing Weinburgs regrets about ethics not being reducible to this.) For the most part, we've done a very good job describing phenomonon this way. In that sense, human behavior is not logical in that basic goals cannot be deduced through the use of these techniques (as Weinberg pointed out). But, logic can be used in determining what means are useful in reaching those goals. IMHO, the basic goals are more alogical than illogical. One other note, I wonder if Andrew has figured out that he led with his chin by sarcastically asking about Erik's knowledge of QM. Before I do something like that, I usually will be willing to at least check the website given in the email I'm responding to, to determine my opponents education and job. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
Erik said: > You obviously don't understand quantum mechanics. Well, I understand quantum mechanics and if "predictable" is a necessary condition for something to be considered "logical" then the universe isn't logical. (I am well aware that the probabilities themselves are predictable in principle, but unless you subscribe to a global hidden variables theory the outcomes themselves are not except in some special cases.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 03:00:56AM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: > Have you been keeping up with your science lately? Heard of this > thing called quantum mechanics? Read up on it, you will find it > fascinating. And also people dont play any part in your world then. If You obviously don't understand quantum mechanics. And you are not worth the effort to explain things to, since thinking is obviously not something that you do. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Request for Proposals
> Sounds a lot like what a lot of people said before > the first Gulf > War (including myself, I'll admit). But in an open > battle, our > technology and training was greater than the > overwhelming numbers of > tanks, infantry, aircraft, etc. > > Heck, folks were saying the same before the GW2! Largely agree. Should the Iranians cross the border and engage in a set piece battle with US forces, they would be playing to our strengths and would suffer grevioulsy for it. The T-72s they have still suffer from the same disadvantages as all other Iraqi T-72s, no mater how modern you think they are: any penetration in the forward 2/3ds of the vehicle are typically catastrophic (high order ammo explosions), and the cannon has been proven to be unable to defeat the armor on the M1A1HA or later variants at useful combat ranges. The BMP series mechanized infantry fighting vehicles have similar vulnerabilities (the Mujahideen in Afghanistan were able to defeat these vehicles in the side armor with M2HB .50CAL machine gunes). I could only concede the likelihood of high casualties if the Iranians could draw us into urban combat, where the differences between the two sides would be reduced. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
- Original Message - From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: RE: Request for Proposals > From: Nick Lidster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ill give you that, as long as you can concede that there would be > significant US casualties. Sounds a lot like what a lot of people said before the first Gulf War (including myself, I'll admit). But in an open battle, our technology and training was greater than the overwhelming numbers of tanks, infantry, aircraft, etc. Heck, folks were saying the same before the GW2! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l The difference was that in the first gulf war Iraq faced the WW3 war machine that was trained harder and longer, for a European push against the USSR. In GW2 the US faced a greatly diminished force with morale at an all time low. Now if you can step back from the table for a minute and think about a "what if" GW1 never happened, and we went in now with the same amount of troops used in GW2, the US would not have faced significant causalities? Now what you will have is the US tiring to defend a entire country that is at a breaking point and doesn't want the US there, against a military of superior numbers with less tech, however keep in mind that these forces would not be facing the entire US force in one location, they would be facing smaller numbers at different locations, and they would reach the urban centers and there would be significant losses on both sides, leaving a huge power gap in both Iran and the US. If such a situation ever occurs, there is no reason why North Korea wouldn't make a push into South Korea, or china into Taiwan. The US simply can't afford for such a situation to occur. nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Request for Proposals
> From: Nick Lidster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ill give you that, as long as you can concede that there would be > significant US casualties. Sounds a lot like what a lot of people said before the first Gulf War (including myself, I'll admit). But in an open battle, our technology and training was greater than the overwhelming numbers of tanks, infantry, aircraft, etc. Heck, folks were saying the same before the GW2! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jesus-anity (was: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > -Travis "being hypocritical on the outside to >> > > make a point" Edmunds > >Debbi > >Using Mr. Pointy As Justification? Maru;) > I hope you're talking about my index finger! > -Travis "Mr. Pointy" Edmunds Nooo, there was actually some (probably obscure, since I can't recall it at the moment) reference to Slayer Kendra's favorite stake, which she passed on to Buffy. As if you didn't know! And no comment on the 'Enterprise:original series' remark!?! *I* thought it devilishly clever... ;} Debbi Pouting Is Difficult To Convey Though Cyberspace Without Appearing Quite Ridiculous Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Holy Grail of Safety (was: Terrorism too close to home)
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Debbi > > who BTW waves and grins at Dan ;) > > Are you just being sociable Debbi, which is awfully > nice of you, or did you > actually hear me muttering "great reasoning Debbi, > now apply it to nuclear > power" as I read it. If you could here me > muttering, you _really_ have a > good sense of hearing. :-) I _did_ say that I was reading tarot for a charity function last weekend, did I not? "Zose who honor zee spirit vorld haf resourcess at zer command, beyond ze ken of zose who do not look beyond ze bosons und ze fermions..."* Reply not on permanent hold (but danged near it, I concede; if I could keep the terms staight in my head I wouldn't have to go back to the beginning every time I start to work on it. :P ). > It was a nice post, BTW. Not only did it agree > with my point of view, ;-) but it was well written. Would you have thought it nice if I had disagreed with your POV? Of course, it's also _my_ POV, which means reasonable and sane and logical...as well as just plain Right. I think that having personally and professionally faced death/mortality numerous times, my illusions about control over this world have been thoroughly shattered. But I understand the deep desire to protect those we love from all danger; perhaps having seen so much self-inflicted suffering by family members who blame themselves for what was unavoidable and accidental, I would avert that at least. Which is in itself a bit arrogant, but... Debbi * __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Requests for Proposals
- Original Message - From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:09 AM Subject: RE: Requests for Proposals > "I would very much appreciate help in understanding how the > US set up the Bathe party...or how we ensured Hussein rose in it." > > I didn't see an answer from him on this. If you could > enlighten me on this, > >I haven't had time to read all this thread, just noticed this one at random. >I don't recall making that claim, if I did, and didn't answer your question, it would be because I would have no idea what I was talking about :) You made the claim in a post on 4/6/04, which I received at 11:51, in the following exchange: Dan: >I believe that the Catholic confession for "what we have done and what we >have failed to do" is a very valid encapsulation for morality. We are >responsible for evil we could have stopped, as well as the evil we do >ourselves. True, raping someone and standing by while another is raped are >not equally evil, but both are evil. Andrew: So we did the latter for 30 years, after putting the rapist in power, and now we decided its our turn. And that makes us Princes of Morality? So you die in a paper shreder or in from a tank shot. Dead you are. By "the rapist", I think you meant Hussein, since that's what the metaphor referred to. Your mentioned 30 years, reinforced that idea. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jesus-anity (was: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out)
From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Jesus-anity (was: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:44:40 -0700 (PDT) > -Travis "being hypocritical on the outside to make a > point" Edmunds Debbi Using Mr. Pointy As Justification? Maru;) I hope you're talking about my index finger! -Travis "Mr. Pointy" Edmunds _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:56:14 -0400 On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: > He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. > > As would I. I don't give a fuck what mental masturbation you want to engage in. Keep it to yourself. If it's mental masturbation, then isn't it kept to oneself anyway? And if it's not, then wouldn't it be verbal masturbation? Which as we all know is easier said than done. Moreover, if you don't care about him engaging in mental/verbal masturbation, then why did you tell him to keep it to himself? Concision, thy name is NOT Erik Reuter... -Travis "waiting for the forthcoming flame" Edmunds _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Request for Proposals
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:07:44PM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: >> No, logic is totally and completely divorced from reality, thats my >Of course it is not. People may not behave logically (consistently, >predictably, etc.), but the universe does. Have you been keeping up with your science lately? Heard of this thing called quantum mechanics? Read up on it, you will find it fascinating. And also people dont play any part in your world then. If they dont behave logically, then the "world" is not logical. I appreciate your interest in logic, I find it attractive too, but the world aint logical. Much as we would like it to be, it just aint. I suppose it comes down to the old clockwork universe arguement. You believe that the universe is clockwork? That we can predict the future using logic. I dont, especially when it comes to people and society. >> So we cant let them choose their own government? And you wonder why >> they might want nuclear weapons? >Do you think at all before you write? Depends on my audience, why do you ask? Andrew -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Terrorism too close to home...
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:51:18AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: > He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. > > As would I. I don't give a fuck what mental masturbation you want to engage in. Keep it to yourself. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Terrorism too close to home...
> From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 10:50:50PM -0400, Gary Nunn wrote: > > > Would I pay all the money in a bank to ransom my children > or sacrifice > > someone else to save my children from imminent death? Yes I would. > > No you would not. IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY. He didn't say that he COULD. Only that he would. As would I. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 1:38 AM Subject: Re: Request for Proposals > Nick Lidster wrote: > > > Irans standing power is 912,569 (2004 est.) mixture of all branches, > > including law enforcement. 3000 troops sure isn't a large force, but lets > > not forget that they have an air force as well; > > > > mig 29 34 > > > > su 2486 > > > > f-14 247 > > > > f-7 287 > > > > f-4 472 > > > > f-5 197 > > > > rf 4e 32 > > > > total 1355 > > > > granted most are old a large amount is current production local variants of > > current and old designs. and all are loacted within strinking distance of > > iraq. they have a armoured force of between 650-1000 armour units (ranges > > depending on location of info) most are russian T-54 - T-72's with a mix of > > almost every nations hardware filling out the numbers. > > Source? I'm wondering how current it is, among other things. > > Julia > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l most comes fom teh CIA fact book, as of may 14, 2004. and the remainder is between some us sources for the US deployments, and the Aircraft thing is as old as 2002, 2003. and exact source i cant remeber but it was on the first or secod page of the google search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
- Original Message - From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 12:32 AM Subject: Re: Request for Proposals > > mig 29 34 > > Moderately potent and modern aircraft. But only 34... > > > su 2486 > > Ground attack. > > > f-14 247 > > Good luck getting spares... > > > f-7 287 > > Chinese MiG-21 knock-off > > > f-4 472 > > Good luck getting spares... > > > f-5 197 > > Obsolete (unless its the CHINESE F-5 [MiG-17] knock-off, which is hopelessly > obsolete...) > > > rf 4e 32 > > Photo-recon. > > > total 1355 > > What's your source on these? Some of the numbers--especially F-14s--are a > little suspect. I don't have a listing of how many F-14s were delivered, but > most must be in a marginal state by now, I'd think. > > > granted most are old a large amount is current production local variants > of > > current and old designs. and all are loacted within strinking distance of > > I don't think Iran has a local aeronautical industry, beyond general > maintenance and spares production. > > > iraq. they have a armoured force of between 650-1000 armour units (ranges > > depending on location of info) most are russian T-54 - T-72's with a mix > of > > almost every nations hardware filling out the numbers. > > We already know what happens to T-72s when hit just about anywhere except > the engine compartment... > > > now lets be honest and not cocky like rumsfeld and go with not enough > troops > > off the start, and admit that there would be significant us losses if such > > an event occured. > > If the Iranians tried to contest an alerted US Army in open battle, the > numerical differences would be minimized by superior US technology, > equipment, and training. If, however, the Iranians could infiltrate bodies > of infantry into the cities and engage US troops there, the story would > indeed be quite different. > > Damon. > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > Ill give you that, as long as you can concede that there would be significant US casualties. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:07:44PM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: > No, logic is totally and completely divorced from reality, thats my Of course it is not. People may not behave logically (consistently, predictably, etc.), but the universe does. Actions have consequences, and no matter how much you may want something, if your desire is contrary to physical law, then you lose. There is also a middle ground, sometimes things involving people can be predicted in a broad manner with reasonable accuracy. > So we cant let them choose their own government? And you wonder why > they might want nuclear weapons? Do you think at all before you write? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: NORAD
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Andrew Paul wrote: >> According to our morning news, the 9/11 commission has >> "conclusively established" that there was no link between >> Saddam and Al Qaeda. Is this what you read from it, or is >> that a misquote? >What I heard regarding it was that there was no direct link between 9/11 >and Iraq, but links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. >Of course, what I get off the radio on the way to the grocery store at >9PM may be suspect. :) Yes, just as what I heard at 8am on my way to work may be suspect. It was the local colouring that interested me. We get this for example : "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties exist between Al Qaeda and Iraq," a report from the commission said. "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, says the findings destroy the credibility of the Government's argument for war in Iraq. "It's quite plain from what's been produced in the United States that the core argument advanced by John Howard, that attacking Iraq was part of the war against terrorism, has been blown apart by this report," Mr Rudd said. Is this the sort of conclusion being drawn by the media in the US? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Request for Proposals
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:49:19AM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: >> Firstly you are suggesting that logical thought applies in these >> situations. >That is because logical thought applies to reality. I'm not suggesting >it applies to all Iranians, obviously, or to you, equally obviously. No, logic is totally and completely divorced from reality, thats my point. People don't behave logically, if they did, then we wouldnt be having half as much trouble, or half as much fun, as we are. We like to think we make logical decisions, and I am sure we all try to be logical about things, but we don't live in a logical world. So if you run your life on logic, then you live in some world I have never visited, and probably involves rubber walls and very few sharp objects. I have no objection to you saying I am illogical, cos its like saying I breathe. I, like every other human I have ever met, is inherently illogical, cos otherwise we would be dead, or at least, very, very boring. >> But regardless of that, you equate sane to logical, w >Nope So you agree then, being logical does not equate to being sane? Or vice-versa. >> Secondly, your attitude to the leaders of Iran is exactly the reason >> why they probably feel the need for nuclear weapons. You are implying >> that the only sane Iranians want a stable democratic government. >Nope OK, It read that way, but if you say nope, then nope it is. But you did admit contempt for the Iranian government didn't you, which was the point I was getting at. >> Cant we accord them the right to choose their own government? >Nope So we cant let them choose their own government? And you wonder why they might want nuclear weapons? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:21:34AM -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > My, strong language and illogic - this was not an either/or choice of > Bush/Cheney and Iranian leaders. My, lies and sophistry. Yes it was, and you know it. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:27:42 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:55:21PM -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > > > 6. A strong case could be made for another country. > > Bullshit. As bad as Bush and Co. are, I'd take them over Iran's leaders > any day. It's not even close. That you would claim otherwise shows that > you are either naive or ignorant. My, strong language and illogic - this was not an either/or choice of Bush/Cheney and Iranian leaders. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
Couldn't sleep and this part of the thread drew me back. Let me correct some facts. Here are the correct totals from the CCIS2002Middleeast.pdf I happen to have. Getting current year or last year estimates is too expensive and not really needed. Armies normally change little in 2-3 years. In this case these numbers are from a report that was available free. --Moderate/Mod-High Quality Mig-29..25 SU-25.7 SU-24D30 F-14..25 F-4E..66 -- Low Quality F-5E/F..60 F-7M.24 Source: Adapted by Anthony H. Cordesman from the IISS, Military Balance, Periscope, JCSS, Middle East Military Balance, Jane's Sentinel, and Jane's Defense Weekly. and material provided by US experts. Iran now has an army of around 450,000 men â including roughly 125,000 Revolutionary Guards, and an inventory of some 1,600 main battle tanks, 1,500 other armored vehicles, and 3,200 major artillery weapons. It also has over 280 combat aircraft [gd - of all types] with potential operational status. Iran has been able to make major improvements in its ability to threaten maritime traffic through the Gulf, and to conduct unconventional warfare. Iran has also begun to acquire modern Soviet combat aircraft and has significant numbers of the export version of the T-72 [tank]and BMP [Armored Personal Carriers]. . Iran has not, however, been able to offset the obsolescence and wear of its overall inventory of armor, ships, and aircraft. Iran has not been able to modernize key aspects of its military capabilities such as airborne sensors and C4I/BM, electronic warfare, land-based air defense integration, beyond-visual-range air-to-air combat, night warfare capabilities, stand-off attack capability, armored sensors and fire control systems, artillery mobility and battle management, combat ship systems integration, etc. Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 775-3270 This report is no longer available at the url below but others are. http://www.csis.org/military/ My analysis - Cordesman is being generous in the flight status of the three American models of planes. Pilot quality, based on hours of training and yearly flight time available from IISS publications, is poor. It is unclear if they have an elite flight squadron that might try to go head-to-head with better American fighter jets. They have sufficient numbers of planes to attempt a a very limited suicidal surprise first strike. That should not be successful given the number of AWACs and naval and ground radar installations as well as the superior fighters the US has in the area . Even if successful at knocking out an airfield or a carrier, an extremely generous assumption, this would gain them no strategic benefit considering the size of the American military forces not in the immediate area. The US land based air craft order of battle as of June 1st is given at the link below: The important land components for air defense are the F-15s and F-16s. At the present time there is one carrier, the George Washington, with F-14s and F-18s given in the current naval order of battle. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_air.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_sea.htm Gary Denton #1 on google for Easter Lemming "Tools for Civilization" as well as #1 on google for Easter Lemming Air Combat Where you find: HoustonChronicle.com - Bartimus: Bush playing pre-emptive politics with Iraq situation "War is failure. We haven't yet worked hard enough to declare that all possible diplomatic, moral or economic solutions have failed. "Powerful, combat-tested generals agree that the United States has not exhausted all its options to head off war with Iraq. Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Wesley K. Clark, former NATO military commander; and Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the U.S. Central Command, think a unilateral U.S. attack on Hussein could undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests around the globe. "When hawks become doves, we should pay attention." Gary Denton Permalink on *10/2/2002* On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:08:28 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Source? I'm wondering how current it is, among other things. > >Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Eh?
William T Goodall wrote: As Calum Chace, a partner at KPMG who specialises in the media business, remarks: "It's never particularly wise to bet against Microsoft. Open systems do tend to win, eventually."" This would be really funny if it wasn't for the "specialises in the media business" bit - that makes it scary... Mind you, I spent over an hour in a meeting today trying to convince others in my organisation that not everyone uses Internet Explorer and MS-Word, and failed. Apparently users of Opera, Mozilla, Firefox, OpenOffice etc are only the lunatic fringe. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Request for Proposals
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:49:19AM +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: > Firstly you are suggesting that logical thought applies in these > situations. That is because logical thought applies to reality. I'm not suggesting it applies to all Iranians, obviously, or to you, equally obviously. > But regardless of that, you equate sane to logical, w Nope > Secondly, your attitude to the leaders of Iran is exactly the reason > why they probably feel the need for nuclear weapons. You are implying > that the only sane Iranians want a stable democratic government. Nope > Cant we accord them the right to choose their own government? Nope By "them" I assume you are talking about the majority of the people. So you are suggesting we overthrow the Iranian government which obviously does not follow the will of the people. I don't see a reasonable way to do that. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hamid Karzai on Poppies in Afghanistan
iaamoac wrote: The government then adopted its current poppy eradication strategy, destroying poppy fields, but the struggle would be a long one, Karzai warned. "Now we know: it will take a number of years — with the continued help of the international community" (Traci Hukill, U.N. Wire, June 15). Australian "60 Minutes" did a story on this (supposedly expecting to produce a feelgood story about slowing drug production). What they found was that the authorities went to farms, made a big fuss and ploughed in the poppies, but only ½acre, then they packed up and moved on to the next farm, leaving many acres of maturing poppies on each one. The simple fact is that poppies are too important to the economy of Afghanistan for any meaningful intervention by Afghan authorities. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
