Ships injure and kill whales, whalers kill whales, sonar from U.S. Navy submarines kill whales and ruin their hearing. What we're doing is unforgivable.
Whew,... thankfully sonar used by every other nations' submarines (and aircraft... and surface ships...) use different laws of physics...
hey can't fantom the power of a single commited individual, and so they find a vast and all powerful secret conspiracy is behind it all. The Knights Templar. The Illuninati. The Zeta Reticulians. The Water Fluoridation Industrial Complex. The Left Handed People of Borneo. The large underground homosexual population of Des Moines, Iowa. You name it. It's quite absurd.
ok...did anyone else do a google search just now for "the left handed poeple of borneo"?
Yeah... I remember that... his story was 'crap'. For what it is worth - here is my response to someone a while back who also thought Palast had any credibility.
WAG = wild-ass guess. As for the article - the gp post was the third post time stamped 2 min after it was posted (so at most 3 min after it was posted.) The article very clearly says "cars" throughout which seems to exclude trucks and SUVs (or the term vehicle would have been used).
We almost do already - take Hate Crimes for instance. In this case you aren't being punished for the action, but for the motivation behind the action. Get into a verbal argument with someone that degenerates into a fight and that's assault and battery. Same situation but with a difference in sexual orientation or race and you could very well find yourself charged with a hate crime. I don't want to be misinterpreted that there is any problem with hate crime legislation - just pointing out that there are already crimes on the book for which a critical component is the thought process/motivation of the perpetrator.
I major point wasn't to try to imply there isn't a civil war. I simply find it very amusing that the perceptions of Americans are so different than the perceptions of the actual population around which this conflict is occurring.
It seems pretty clear to me that there's a civil war going on Iraq at the moment. Are you honestly trying to dispute that?
Thanks for posting this... I've been waiting for your post for a couple months... If you take a poll in the US,... I'd bet a majority of the people would agree with you and say that Iraq is indeed currently in a state of civil war. Oh wait... I don't have to guess... we have this Harris poll from November showing 68% of Americans think Iraq is in a civil war and this CNN poll from this March showing 65% think Iraq is in a civil war. In the former (more recent) poll, only 14% of Americans disagreed. So I think it is pretty fair to say that yes, Americans do believe that Iraq is in a civil war.
Now... lets compare this with the opinions of Iraqis living in Iraq. This poll from less than 2 months ago has only 27% of Iraqis thinking they are in a civil war. How can only 27% of Iraqis think they are in a civil war at the exact time that 65% of Americans think they are in a civil war? Simple - you say it over and over enough and people will believe it. I am by no means saying everything is cheery over there - I am sure it is hell... but it apparently isn't a civil war. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the media mentions the words "civil war" in every single broadcast about Iraq? Or that the current congressional leadership reiterates this exact point every time they speak on the issue? Think about this over the next week or so... make a concious note every time a reporter or leader of congress says the words "civil war".
The government and people of the State of Florida are not giving up the pretense of anything. The party bosses of the Democratic (big D) party in Florida has given up any pretense of caring about democratic (little d) issues.
You nailed it. Does this mean they have to change the name of their party? Maybe the "Demorecommendocrats" or more pointedly "Oligarcrats"?
No... I just didn't want to waste my time going through each and every ridiculous claim when it is much easier to just go for the ad hominem which is perfectly appropriate in this case. We are talking about credibility after all.
First off - you are part of the problem and I shouldn't even be wasting my time...double that considering you are an AC... but...
"Pilots for 9/11 truth" looks to have about 20 or 30 members. AOPA has about 400,000 members which probably isn't half the aviators in this country. Does this mean (by exclusion) that 99.9925% of aviators don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies? What makes your 20-30 so special? If their "pilot sense" makes them suspect something in the "official story", why don't all other pilots? Or is it more simple to believe that these 20-30 are just loons? Anyone can get a pilots license. I know... I have one.
As for Dr. Jones... somewhere after reading about his involvement in cold fusion and trying to prove the existence of pre-Columbus horses in North America to reconcile with his faith - I stopped reading. No... just kidding.. maybe it was the part about his getting forced to retire because the engineering faculty had a problem with his theories (maybe the engineers knew something about structures that a particle physicist doesn't....go figure). Regardless, for every nut job who happens to be a physicist, I can find at least 100 that don't believe in your conspiracy theories (I am one for instance). I can't wait to see his peer-reviewed paper. Even better, I can't wait to see what organization "peer-reviews" it (I'll bet the word "9-11" appears in the org's title, or maybe "concerned").
Your AE911Thruth link doesn't work - so you've spared me the agony of pointing out how pitifully small their following probably is compared to the body of right-minded engineers and architects. This must be my lucky day... I am also an engineer (at least that's what my diplomas say). Maybe I should start a group called "Engineers, Scientists and Pilots with Who aren't Ignorant" and see how many members I get.
The problem is that most Libertarians don't seem to believe that there's a problem with a monopoly having a distortive effect on the market or on consumers as long as they don't get the government to do them any special favors.
No... most libertarians believe there's a problem with a monopoly until they have a distortive [sic] effect on the market or on consumers... Monopolies are not inherently bad for the consumer. Economic libertarians know this. If the people choose one company over its competitors because that company is simply the "best" choice (for whatever reason) then the consumer has not been hurt. It is only when the company uses its market position to stifle competition that hurts the consumers that this becomes bad for the market. Monopoly laws aren't there to protect companies from one another. They exist to protect the consumer.
What was once moderate left is now considered far left. What was moderate right is now considered centrist. What was far right is now right, and what was once considered bug-fuck insane is now simply far right.
You sound like a disappointed view from the left - and I don't doubt you see the shift that way. I see it as much more complex... for some issues, the country center has shifted left, for others...to the right. Fiscally I would say the country has shifted to the right. On some issues, say reproductive rights, the center has become broader as the extremes on both sides have been muted. Sex ed / birth control is much more accepted by the right, and abortion is not as fanatically defended by the left. Environmentally the country has certainly shifted left. Can you imagine this many people caring about greenhouse emissions, global warming, or recycling in the 1980's? The one exception there is that the that many environmentalists has significantly reduced their opposition to nuclear power (considering the alternatives).
Assuming you are liberal - then yes,... it makes sense that you see the center shifting to the right. Perhaps you are not being exposed to the changing viewpoints of the right (also toward center). And I don't see the far right in any way moving further right. The best you could probably do is make an argument about gay marriage - but when you think about it.. that is a resistance to change... maintenance of the status quo... it's not like the right ever embraced gay marriage and never had a need to pass an amendment banning it until states started legalizing it (yet another example of the center (or at least the right) shifting left.
*sigh*...I am terrified that our society has peaked and is now waning. Our (I'm assuming you are US btw) education system is clearly failing us - we seem to have lost the ability to think critically. Not everyone can be an engineer or a scientists - but those skills aren't necessary to judge the credibility of a documentary. You apparently would rather believe a couple kids than the hundreds of thousands of engineers in this country that understand the truth. Sure, there will be your eccentrics, your ego-maniacs, and your out-of-their-league-engineers that may lend a voice to these conspiracies... but have you considered that they might represent 0.1% of the population of people who understand these things? Its all the same, whether it is 9-11 or the moon landings (which I assume you also suspect were faked).
Nigel Tufnel: This is a top post, it's very, very special, because, if you can see...
Marty DiBergi: Yeah...
Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to the moderation]...the numbers all go to six. Look, right across the board: six, six, six, six,..
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most scoring systems go up to five?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's funnier? Is that any more funny?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one funnier, isn't it? It's not five. You see, most... most blokes, you know, will be joking at five. You're on five here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up... you're on five on slashdot. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know...
Nigel Tufnel:...nowhere! Exactly! What we do is if we need that extra... push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Mod it up to six.
Nigel Tufnel:...six. Exactly. One higher.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make five funnier, and make five be the top... number, and make that a little funnier?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause, blank look and snapping chewing gum] This goes to six.
An analogy: take a pan of water, and put it on a gas stove. The meterologist's job is to predict where convections will occur at some time (a few seconds) in the future. In this chaotic system, it becomes harder and harder to predict the exact position and strength of individual convections on a period greater than a few seconds. The climatologists job, on the other hand, is to say if you turn up the heat by 50%, the water will boil in X minutes, and if you also cover the pan with a lid, the water will boil in Y minutes (were Y X). The climatologist can predict this with a fairly good degree of accuracy, given that he knows how much extra energy turning up the heat puts into the water (analagous to the sun warming up), and how much energy the lid traps (analagous to greenhouse gases).
That's a horrible analogy. Your description of a climatologist is much closer to that of a chemist. I think the point you were trying to make was that meterology is the study of local/short-period effects while climatologists study longer term, more general effects. Your example might be valid if climatologists had a complete understanding of all the processes involved which they clearly don't. A better example would be as follows: you can observe a container of liquid. You can take measurements of the properties of this liquid. You are pretty sure that this container is a pot and that it is on a heat source. You don't know the room temperature or the heat source temperature or history. At any one time you can observe the liquid's properties (composition, temp, etc). These properties are continuously changing due to what appears to be someone adding various amounts of ingredients and from boil-off. You have been taking measurements for the last 10 minutes. You have the notes of the guy before you but they are worse quality measurements. What were the starting ingredients and What will the soup taste like when done?
I suppose you don't get the part where journalists feel that they need to honour the trust of privacy between themselves and their informant. Disagree with that if you must, but what you're saying doesn't seem relevant here.
and I guess I missed the part where:
carrying a camcorder to a riot makes someone a "journalist" - even if he has a website.
journalists have a constitutional right to protect their sources.(hint: read the 1st ammendment again - it says they can print anything they want - not that they can shield their sources)
I just watched it again and there was certainly contact between the interstage and the 2nd stage nozzle. You can even see the nozzle deform and spring back to shape. Now I am wondering if this altered the shape of the nozzle or damaged the ablator material on the inside which could have caused misaligned thrust.
Slashdot Mirror
Whew,... thankfully sonar used by every other nations' submarines (and aircraft... and surface ships...) use different laws of physics...
Standby to be shocked!
1) Absurd and inappropriate love story
2) Countless quick, nausiating cuts
3) Horrible dialog
Lets hope transformers are awesome enough to make up for Bay's movie making "skills".
Michael Bay made the Star Wars prequels? I thought that was George Lucas..??
ok...did anyone else do a google search just now for "the left handed poeple of borneo"?
Forget the physics, look at all the other evidence, pre, during and post-9/11.
Pretty much sums up the whole truther movement in one, concise statement.
Yeah... I remember that... his story was 'crap'. For what it is worth - here is my response to someone a while back who also thought Palast had any credibility.
WAG = wild-ass guess. As for the article - the gp post was the third post time stamped 2 min after it was posted (so at most 3 min after it was posted.) The article very clearly says "cars" throughout which seems to exclude trucks and SUVs (or the term vehicle would have been used).
I'm going to take a wag that you didn't read the article.
We almost do already - take Hate Crimes for instance. In this case you aren't being punished for the action, but for the motivation behind the action. Get into a verbal argument with someone that degenerates into a fight and that's assault and battery. Same situation but with a difference in sexual orientation or race and you could very well find yourself charged with a hate crime. I don't want to be misinterpreted that there is any problem with hate crime legislation - just pointing out that there are already crimes on the book for which a critical component is the thought process/motivation of the perpetrator.
I major point wasn't to try to imply there isn't a civil war. I simply find it very amusing that the perceptions of Americans are so different than the perceptions of the actual population around which this conflict is occurring.
Thanks for posting this... I've been waiting for your post for a couple months... If you take a poll in the US,... I'd bet a majority of the people would agree with you and say that Iraq is indeed currently in a state of civil war. Oh wait... I don't have to guess... we have this Harris poll from November showing 68% of Americans think Iraq is in a civil war and this CNN poll from this March showing 65% think Iraq is in a civil war. In the former (more recent) poll, only 14% of Americans disagreed. So I think it is pretty fair to say that yes, Americans do believe that Iraq is in a civil war.
Now... lets compare this with the opinions of Iraqis living in Iraq. This poll from less than 2 months ago has only 27% of Iraqis thinking they are in a civil war. How can only 27% of Iraqis think they are in a civil war at the exact time that 65% of Americans think they are in a civil war? Simple - you say it over and over enough and people will believe it. I am by no means saying everything is cheery over there - I am sure it is hell... but it apparently isn't a civil war. Could this have anything to do with the fact that the media mentions the words "civil war" in every single broadcast about Iraq? Or that the current congressional leadership reiterates this exact point every time they speak on the issue? Think about this over the next week or so... make a concious note every time a reporter or leader of congress says the words "civil war".
You mean like NASA's COTS program or its Centennial Challenges? Seriously,... how can you not know about these? These have been covered extensively here.
You aren't really comparing the ancient practices of one religion with the current practices of another,... are you?
Terminator: The Search for More Money
You must be new here Mr. "40,751-short-of-one-billion"
You nailed it. Does this mean they have to change the name of their party? Maybe the "Demorecommendocrats" or more pointedly "Oligarcrats"?
No... I just didn't want to waste my time going through each and every ridiculous claim when it is much easier to just go for the ad hominem which is perfectly appropriate in this case. We are talking about credibility after all.
"Pilots for 9/11 truth" looks to have about 20 or 30 members. AOPA has about 400,000 members which probably isn't half the aviators in this country. Does this mean (by exclusion) that 99.9925% of aviators don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies? What makes your 20-30 so special? If their "pilot sense" makes them suspect something in the "official story", why don't all other pilots? Or is it more simple to believe that these 20-30 are just loons? Anyone can get a pilots license. I know... I have one.
As for Dr. Jones... somewhere after reading about his involvement in cold fusion and trying to prove the existence of pre-Columbus horses in North America to reconcile with his faith - I stopped reading. No... just kidding.. maybe it was the part about his getting forced to retire because the engineering faculty had a problem with his theories (maybe the engineers knew something about structures that a particle physicist doesn't....go figure). Regardless, for every nut job who happens to be a physicist, I can find at least 100 that don't believe in your conspiracy theories (I am one for instance). I can't wait to see his peer-reviewed paper. Even better, I can't wait to see what organization "peer-reviews" it (I'll bet the word "9-11" appears in the org's title, or maybe "concerned").
Your AE911Thruth link doesn't work - so you've spared me the agony of pointing out how pitifully small their following probably is compared to the body of right-minded engineers and architects. This must be my lucky day... I am also an engineer (at least that's what my diplomas say). Maybe I should start a group called "Engineers, Scientists and Pilots with Who aren't Ignorant" and see how many members I get.
No... most libertarians believe there's a problem with a monopoly until they have a distortive [sic] effect on the market or on consumers... Monopolies are not inherently bad for the consumer. Economic libertarians know this. If the people choose one company over its competitors because that company is simply the "best" choice (for whatever reason) then the consumer has not been hurt. It is only when the company uses its market position to stifle competition that hurts the consumers that this becomes bad for the market. Monopoly laws aren't there to protect companies from one another. They exist to protect the consumer.
You sound like a disappointed view from the left - and I don't doubt you see the shift that way. I see it as much more complex... for some issues, the country center has shifted left, for others...to the right. Fiscally I would say the country has shifted to the right. On some issues, say reproductive rights, the center has become broader as the extremes on both sides have been muted. Sex ed / birth control is much more accepted by the right, and abortion is not as fanatically defended by the left. Environmentally the country has certainly shifted left. Can you imagine this many people caring about greenhouse emissions, global warming, or recycling in the 1980's? The one exception there is that the that many environmentalists has significantly reduced their opposition to nuclear power (considering the alternatives).
Assuming you are liberal - then yes, ... it makes sense that you see the center shifting to the right. Perhaps you are not being exposed to the changing viewpoints of the right (also toward center). And I don't see the far right in any way moving further right. The best you could probably do is make an argument about gay marriage - but when you think about it.. that is a resistance to change... maintenance of the status quo... it's not like the right ever embraced gay marriage and never had a need to pass an amendment banning it until states started legalizing it (yet another example of the center (or at least the right) shifting left.
Oh,.. and here is your rebuttal:
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_ch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgjWGVHxW8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)
And here is a pre-emptive one: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Marty DiBergi: Yeah...
Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to the moderation] ...the numbers all go to six. Look, right across the board: six, six, six, six,..
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most scoring systems go up to five?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's funnier? Is that any more funny?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one funnier, isn't it? It's not five. You see, most... most blokes, you know, will be joking at five. You're on five here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up... you're on five on slashdot. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know...
Nigel Tufnel: ...nowhere! Exactly! What we do is if we need that extra... push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Mod it up to six.
Nigel Tufnel: ...six. Exactly. One higher.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make five funnier, and make five be the top... number, and make that a little funnier?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause, blank look and snapping chewing gum] This goes to six.
That's a horrible analogy. Your description of a climatologist is much closer to that of a chemist. I think the point you were trying to make was that meterology is the study of local/short-period effects while climatologists study longer term, more general effects. Your example might be valid if climatologists had a complete understanding of all the processes involved which they clearly don't. A better example would be as follows: you can observe a container of liquid. You can take measurements of the properties of this liquid. You are pretty sure that this container is a pot and that it is on a heat source. You don't know the room temperature or the heat source temperature or history. At any one time you can observe the liquid's properties (composition, temp, etc). These properties are continuously changing due to what appears to be someone adding various amounts of ingredients and from boil-off. You have been taking measurements for the last 10 minutes. You have the notes of the guy before you but they are worse quality measurements. What were the starting ingredients and What will the soup taste like when done?
and I guess I missed the part where:
I just watched it again and there was certainly contact between the interstage and the 2nd stage nozzle. You can even see the nozzle deform and spring back to shape. Now I am wondering if this altered the shape of the nozzle or damaged the ablator material on the inside which could have caused misaligned thrust.