Yes, I can, and it's quite good. I don't have my father's recipe, but I found one here which looks tasty.
The problem I see is of course the fact that pork and spinach recipes work because their tastes are married; that is, they are separate and then blend. I fear that this may taste like a half-pork half-spinach culinary disaster, like a soup that was put in the blender rather than simmered for hours.
(yes, I know the resultant pig won't actually taste like spinach--whether it tastes like pork will be another matter--but will only make the goyim super-strong, like Popeye).
Actually, if you re-express it in Cartesian coordinates (flat mapping of a sphere), the North Pole becomes a line instead of a point. If you head North (positive y) at a certain rate, then no matter how far East or West you go (i.e., no matter what you do to your x coordinate), you will reach the North Pole (y == whatever constant) at a certain time.
Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the explanation, which is to find something from everyday life which clarifies the concept for non-physicists. People understand intuitively that you can't go any farther North than the North Pole, that there isn't some point further North that they could reach if only they tried hard enough. Drawing a line y=42 doesn't do the same thing, because they can imagine a something at 43.
So why is the answer not satisfying? Being a physics TA, I have to understand the misunderstandings of students. It would be very helpful to me to understand why the answer is not satisfying.
As a non-physicist, I feel fully qualified to answer this. The problem is gettin your head around bended space--most people's conception of space is described by a graph with three axises at 90 degree angles. No normal person ever doubts Euclid's fifth postulate.
The way I get my head around it is to imagine a globe. I can go East or West all I want; but if I'm also going North (forward in time), I will hit the North Pole--it is a point I cannot avoid. Why this is the case is not obvious if I express it in Cartesian coordinates, and most of us never get beyond them.
Black Hole does not necesseraly imply singularity in the center. It only imply the presense of the evnt horizon, what' below it is is not and can not be known. From the point of view of the matter falling into the black hole - it is never crossed, as the time slows down infinitely as you approach it.
From the point of view of matter not falling into the black whole, matter falling in never crosses the event horizon. For matter falling in itself not to notice its crossing, relativity would have to say that the faster you go the slower you go; it obviously does not say this.
Also, ignoring quantum effects, it would stand to reason that anything below the event horizon would collapse into a singularity: it must become as small as is possible. Matter could not survive such pressure, and the energy at that point would appear to be infinite. Of course, since this all assumes that energy occupies a particular place and time, the concept of a singularity might not be appropriate in quantum mechanics.
For example in times of old it was believed that the world was flat and that you could fall off the edge of the world. This was thought by many to be a truth for centuries, but it wasn't fully tested.
It's odd that you should choose this example, as it was based on authority rather than reason. In cases were men applied their reason to the matter, unfettered and unguided by authority, they have concluded that the Earth was round (look at the shadow it casts on the moon).
If God were so intent that we not explore science for its own sake but only for those things that are useful or readily apparent, wouldn't He have told us as much in a commandment or two, rather than in an easily interpretable story? Instead, he says, My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; And the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: When thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, And thy expectation shall not be cut off. (Prov. 24:13-14). (knowledge is actually in the imperative, know that wisdom is such to your soul.) Which would suggest the pursuit of science for its own sake. And if science is commanded, how can He not also command whatever missteps are necessary for the advancement of science?
I see no confusion between your two posts. I agree that the Bible doesn't give all the steps, but we at some point must accept "And God said...". In Genesis 11:1-9, we read a story of people who wanted to build a tower to heaven. God came and confused their language and scattered them abroad. God gave them the ability to build, but they misused that ability. We can't confuse the knowledge, with a need to know. Knowledge and faith are not mutually exclusive, but knowledge is not required for faith.
The confusion mentioned in my first post was why we should think that sugars were created in space, requiring an extraterrestrial seed for their presence on Earth. I stepped back from that confusion in my second post, admitting that it may be more likely that they were created in space than on Earth after it had formed/been formed.
Moreover, I must disagree that knowledge is not at all required for faith. Cf. Deut. 4:6, "...for it is your wisdom and your discernment...", discernment being the closest thing to reason, in our usage, in Hebrew (Binah). See also Prov. 2:1-5, 7:4, 9:6, and 9:10 (the word may be translated understanding).
It does not appear, then, that God struck Babylon for its pursuit of scientific knowledge; God did not steal the secret of architecture from them (unless this is one of those omitted details--why would He omit such an important detail?). Their reasons were not a pursuit of knowledge, but to make a name for themselves (Gen. 11:4). (Incidently, when God ensures that they will not "understand the language of his neighbor" (Gen. 11:7), the word is literally listen, not understand or discern, as above.)
And at the very least, even scriptural literalism requires that one know the scriptures and their pedigree. And how could we know the miracles described therein to be miracles without a knowledge of the Nature from which they deviate?
To believe this, you still have to come up with an answer to where did it come from originally. I believe that it is much easier to believe in God than to believe that all this stuff just happened to occur in the right order.
I'd like to retract the confusion of my original post in order to answer this one. I reread the space.com article, and there do seem to be reasons that it would be easier for such molecules to have formed in space than on Earth. It seems that the primordial formation of our solar system would have been favorable to their production (in some discernable amount), and as all--or at least most--of the stuff in the solar system came from this primordial mixing of gases, it would be reasonable that some simple sugars would be found in asteroids. (Of course, such processes could also be the source of these sugars on Earth, it having formed from the same stuff; asteroid impact would still not be needed for seeding life.)
This is easier to believe than the first chapter of Genesis because it is the product of our own reasoning. God may have created the heavens and the earth, but the jump from belief to knowledge requires that we know how He did so. The Bible does not tell us the processes that took place ("And there was light" isn't very helpful in this regard); it at most gives us the first cause and result ("And God said..." and the above quote).
Moreover, since God does not speak in the Bible of simple sugars, other planets or asteroids, or penguins, we must, if we are to remain believers, admit that God did not give us every detail. (Do we really need to know about polyhydroxylated compounds in order to be led to belief?) We should not, then, assume that the discovery of every detail that is not mentioned in the Bible is an attempt to contradict the Bible, and thus need not assert the Bilical account as an alternative.
Of course, the order of creation is open to dispute, if God meant that early account to be a scientific explanation of our origins.
I don't understand how the presence of sugars in asteroids suggests that meteors planted sugars on Earth. If sugars can be created through inorganic processes, where's the argument that such processes were not responsible for the sugars on Earth? If they cannot be so created, then sugars are not the seeds required for life, and so there is no reason to suspect that life was seeded by meteors. I don't find the discussion at the end of the article particularly helpful in this regard.
if i can sell hair clippings, i can cell human caviar.
Of course, you're not allowed to sell hair clippings as food. And calling it "human caviar", even if you put a "not for human consumption" label on it, will bring it under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
It shouldn't be based on economy size, but on the number of problems in the world you cause OR are involved in (takes 2 sides to have a war). If you go by that number I'm fairly sure the US 25% is closer to the mark.
Let me get this straight. The more conflicts you "are involved in", the more you should pay the UN to send you off into conflicts? The US fights under a UN mandate in the '91 Gulf War, causing a whole host of problems (mostly the result of leaving the losers alive to be pissed off about it), and so ought to contribute more to the UN so it can afford to send... um... the US off to... well... fulfill UN mandates. Conversely, the US did squat to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and so don't have to pony up nothin'.
Hey, I like you plan! The more the US attacks helpless little villagers, the bigger its Attack Helpless Villager budget gets!
To expand on the previous explanation, as far as Plato is concerned there exists the universal idea of "chair". We may see isolated instances of "chairs", but the only reason we know these are chairs is because they are reflections or shadows of the universal (true, global, ) Chair.
I would suspect that most of us think the other way around: society has taught us to use the word chair, and now their is a general consensus of what a chair is. Thus the universal idea arises from the details. Plato would have argued that the details arise from the universal idea.
I think you're giving Plato short shrift by bringing over the concept of "chair"; Plato doesn't really say that all the words that we use are Ideas. To use a more Socratic example, we both use the word justice; what do we mean by justice? Or more importantly from a Socratic perspective, what do you mean by justice? Most people's explanation of justice is self-contradictory, or at least does not fully explain what they mean.
What happens if we try to work out these contradictions and clarify their meaning? Eventually, says Socrates via Plato (skipping over many steps), we arrive at the Idea of the Good, in light of which all other ideas make sense. Not only that, but since we as humans experience the world only through our humanity, making sense of these ideas makes sense of all phenomena. In the end, the idea of justice for the philosopher may not appear at all like that of the citizen, the former being informed by a single idea that ties everything together.
Not that I for a moment suggest that this is what the Times article meant in its opposition of Plato and Aristotle, but as we began to discuss Plato, I weighed in. The Times article oversimplifies. Yes, Plato thought you could explain everything with reference to this single idea, but we gained knowledge of this idea by beginning with the various human phenomena, i.e., with the details. And yes, Aristotle thought that science began with a study of the details, but that study was to lead us to first principles from which we could explain all the other details.
Atlantis was a morality play written by Plato to show Socrates idea of civil order and an ideal state, not a story to keep telling the kids years from now like The Illid and the Odyssey. The Atlantian stories were philosphical in nature and not a hyped report of current events, religon, or events.... The age of the story was given in the story by Plato who got it from some Egyptian Mystic.
The case against Atlantis is stronger than you present it here as being. The opening of the Timaeus presents itself as happening the day after Socrates related action of the Republic, at which point Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates present their version of that city. That is, they present their version of Socrates' made-up regime, changing it where they thought it needed it. Philosopher-kings are replaced with priest-kings, the communism is abandoned, and it is presented as an ancient model to follow rather than a new one.
If you look at what Critias actually says, the ancient Athenians he describes in the story are the citizens of Socrates' city -- he suggests that his story is made up, but in keeping in line with the radically more conservative character of this discussion, it is presented as being true.
That is, the story of Atlantis first told in the Timaeus and Critias is presented as being false! Later people apparently didn't get the joke.
Since the above might seem controversial to some, here's an explanation that might seem less so to them. Plato promises us three dialogues dealing with Atlantis: the Timaeus, the Critias, and the Hermocrates. We never get to see the third, and the second is unfinished. Plato was prevented from finishing by the FBI and various 19th century materialist skeptics.
The same stem I-O-U (wich you spell as "v", but is actually a "w", as Jovis was pronounced "yowis") appears in Jehovah, or Yahweh. Graves makes a case of pointing out the parallell development between the Jovian-Apollinean shift in Graeco-Roman religion with the Judaeo-Christian shift in Middle-Eastern religion.
I'm afraid that Graves made a mistake here: the word in Hebrew is YHWH. H is part of the root. The root would be either HYH or HWH (Y and W can be interchangeable). The linguistic parallel doesn't work.
Could you explain this? Looking through Liddell-Scott, all attested forms begin with a D or Z (Zeus, Deus, Dieos, Dios, Diei, Dii, Di, etc.) Some forms could be explained by a digamma, but I don't see where the o went, and as it tends to dominate contractions, I ought to see some remnant of it.
I saw somewhere that some crazy nut shot at the moon with a lazer and managed to cut "CHA" into it before being stopped by some blue spider, or some such. I hope the mining doesn't destroy the CHA, 'cause I haven't seen it yet.
For instance, a certain type of artist needs to know how to paint, how to communicate ideas through pictures, and use pictures to inspire certain emotions or thoughts in others. Ok, there's your skill list, and a pretty short one at that. But how do you test it without so much observer bias getting in as to make scores or rankings of ability unusable?
Why would you think that an ability to communicate is somehow indepedent from observer bias, such that we cannot measure artistic ability -- which you link to communicative ability -- because there is too much observer bias? Isn't observer bias the heart of communication? And thus wouldn't any attempt to measure such ability independent of such 'bias' be an attempt to measure nothing? And thus not at all surprising when we fail?
Or do you suggest that I can speak perfectly good German even if no so-called German-speaker can understand me? Or that what I speak can be classified as good German or bad German without regard to how Germans are speaking?
Catastrophe comes from the Greek katastrephein, to overturn. Kata = down(-ish). Strophe = turn. The Greek for ill star would be something like kakastron, which I don't see in attested use.
Lincoln's act was declared unconstitutional in 1866, Ex parte Milligan.
Milligan was arrested in 1864 under Congress' 1863 authorization of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, not under the President's earlier declaration. As such, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, deals with the Congressional Act, not with the Presidential declaration.
Congress authorized the President to detain citizens and suspend writs of habeas corpus, but specified that his name be delivered to the court and that, if the grand jury adjourned without indicting him, he should be released. If his name was not furnished to the court within twenty days, he likewise should be released.
Milligan, however, was tried and sentenced to death by a military court. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this military court had jurisdiction to try Milligan (Milligan was a resident of Michigan, which was not in rebellion). Not only had Congress not given the military court such jurisdiction, but the Constitution forbade it.
The Court did not, however, rule that the Act of 1863 suspending the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, nor the President's use of it. Nor did it rule on the President's earlier suspension of the writ by executive order.
So, the idea that I'm a citizen and my President has unconstitutionally declared war -- exposing me to war taxes, suspension of liberties, and, conceivably, death in a foreign land -- does not give me "standing" in this issue?
No, because any war taxes would have to be constitutionally approved by the Congress, as would any authorization of addition powers or general induction. The emergency powers that the President can invoke have already been approved by Congress upon declaration, by the President, of a state of emergency; a state of war need not be declared.
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but has any American citizen ever taken the U.S. government to court over the types of issues Sanford Levinson discusses in his essay? Like the fact that the US has not formally declared war against a particular country? Or when Eugene Debs was imprisoned for speaking out against entering WWI? Can the gov't be taken to court for these things?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Debs in Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211. It dealt somewhat with your first question, but the Supreme Court insists that everyone who argues before it be a party to the case. Since declarations of war are a power of the Senate, acting as if such a declaration existed when in fact it did not would be a matter of executive encroachment on the Senate; i.e., the Senate would have to sue the President in order for the Supreme Court's requirement of standing to be fulfilled. Of course, this would be more a matter of checks and balances than judicial action.
Executive encroachment of civil liberties frequently goes to trial, but the government usually wins.
Actually, I was reading that, in the US, there is some law.. I forget the name. Something about declaring a state of national emergency. In such a state, the president has power to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution.
The U.S. President has a variety of emergency powers, but none of them can in any way affect the rules set out in the Constitution. Congress, through the years, has expanded presidential power; these powers came with strings attached. In emergency, some of these strings come off, but the basic constitutional protections remain.
This is not to say that Presidents have not violated the Constitution. Lincoln suspended the right of filing writs of habeas corpus (as did Davis). The loyalty oaths and attendant disqualifications from office may have constituted ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, but the Fourteenth Amendment, in making such disqualifications part of the Constutition, resolved that issue. And let's not forget about internment camps during World War II.
Presidents may act unconstitutionally, but unlike Great Britain, unconstitutional acts, if they go unpunished, do not set a precedent for their constitutionality.
... this cloud lies near an area where young stars are forming... This would liberate the molecules from their chilly nurseries, depositing them into interstellar space...
Bureau of ATF officials are now on their way to the region looking for their intergalactic still. "Young adults tend to think that moonshining is a fun way to avoid their state's liquor laws, but the "Dukes of Hazaard" is not an accurate portrayal of this dangerous business," said Agt. Washington Fleming, who is leading the operation. "The quanity involved, although small by galactic standards, suggests that this is not being done just for personal use, and that makes it a Federal matter. Also, once they start selling it, they step on the heals of organized crime, and are so pitting themselves against a more ruthless foe than Boss Hog."
Three years of drought, twenty years of civil war, and the anticpiated US retailer have caused dreadful living conditions.
Does everything get blamed on America's globalization policies? I know the spread of Wal*Mart breaks apart traditional small-town living, but really now.
Now, I have no problem with people who want to study phys. ed., don't get me wrong! I think it's cool that all sorts of things from S.C.U.B.A. to archery to fencing to track and field are available in college. But if someone has no interest in them, and his field of intended study/expertise is totally nonphysical (like mine), then I have never once in my life seen the point in forcing him to study phys. ed. It's a waste of his time, money, and patience.
The only people who profit, *coincidentally*, are colleges with fees for phys. ed. classes... hmmm... well, that's conspiracy # 504,327 I've unearthed today!
You are correct -- it is a conspiracy -- but not for the purpose you allege. The universities with extensive core requirements believe in the old kind of "well-rounded" education, and do not feel that they ought to provide merely technical training. They are intent upon educating fully human beings and will force those seeking a glorified VoTech Institute to at least go through the motions of becoming an educated man/woman. They are able to do this because they have acquired great reputations (or at least aspire to them, in the case of small liberal arts colleges).
One might well answer that many technically proficient applicants choose to go elsewhere in order to avoid their stringent core curriculae, but such schools are not too troubled by this. The most technically proficient will succeed in business without them, and they care more about education than producing the best mid-level programmers --- and it is precisely these mid-level programmers who most need the authority of a well-respected institution on their resume.
So while the average student might complain about having to take courses unrelated to their major, they really do have no choice. And because these universities believe they are benefitting these students, they do not feel bad about the element of coercion involved. Universities have not dropped core requirements unless they were first convinced that there is no human need for a liberal education (or that they cannot provide it to the unwilling); arguments to the tune of "this isn't what I paid for, and I'm paying for this" have little appreciable impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I can, and it's quite good. I don't have my father's recipe, but I found one here which looks tasty.
The problem I see is of course the fact that pork and spinach recipes work because their tastes are married; that is, they are separate and then blend. I fear that this may taste like a half-pork half-spinach culinary disaster, like a soup that was put in the blender rather than simmered for hours.
(yes, I know the resultant pig won't actually taste like spinach--whether it tastes like pork will be another matter--but will only make the goyim super-strong, like Popeye).
Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the explanation, which is to find something from everyday life which clarifies the concept for non-physicists. People understand intuitively that you can't go any farther North than the North Pole, that there isn't some point further North that they could reach if only they tried hard enough. Drawing a line y=42 doesn't do the same thing, because they can imagine a something at 43.
As a non-physicist, I feel fully qualified to answer this. The problem is gettin your head around bended space--most people's conception of space is described by a graph with three axises at 90 degree angles. No normal person ever doubts Euclid's fifth postulate.
The way I get my head around it is to imagine a globe. I can go East or West all I want; but if I'm also going North (forward in time), I will hit the North Pole--it is a point I cannot avoid. Why this is the case is not obvious if I express it in Cartesian coordinates, and most of us never get beyond them.
From the point of view of matter not falling into the black whole, matter falling in never crosses the event horizon. For matter falling in itself not to notice its crossing, relativity would have to say that the faster you go the slower you go; it obviously does not say this.
Also, ignoring quantum effects, it would stand to reason that anything below the event horizon would collapse into a singularity: it must become as small as is possible. Matter could not survive such pressure, and the energy at that point would appear to be infinite. Of course, since this all assumes that energy occupies a particular place and time, the concept of a singularity might not be appropriate in quantum mechanics.
It's odd that you should choose this example, as it was based on authority rather than reason. In cases were men applied their reason to the matter, unfettered and unguided by authority, they have concluded that the Earth was round (look at the shadow it casts on the moon).
If God were so intent that we not explore science for its own sake but only for those things that are useful or readily apparent, wouldn't He have told us as much in a commandment or two, rather than in an easily interpretable story? Instead, he says, My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; And the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: When thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, And thy expectation shall not be cut off. (Prov. 24:13-14). (knowledge is actually in the imperative, know that wisdom is such to your soul.) Which would suggest the pursuit of science for its own sake. And if science is commanded, how can He not also command whatever missteps are necessary for the advancement of science?
The confusion mentioned in my first post was why we should think that sugars were created in space, requiring an extraterrestrial seed for their presence on Earth. I stepped back from that confusion in my second post, admitting that it may be more likely that they were created in space than on Earth after it had formed/been formed.
Moreover, I must disagree that knowledge is not at all required for faith. Cf. Deut. 4:6, "...for it is your wisdom and your discernment...", discernment being the closest thing to reason, in our usage, in Hebrew (Binah). See also Prov. 2:1-5, 7:4, 9:6, and 9:10 (the word may be translated understanding).
It does not appear, then, that God struck Babylon for its pursuit of scientific knowledge; God did not steal the secret of architecture from them (unless this is one of those omitted details--why would He omit such an important detail?). Their reasons were not a pursuit of knowledge, but to make a name for themselves (Gen. 11:4). (Incidently, when God ensures that they will not "understand the language of his neighbor" (Gen. 11:7), the word is literally listen, not understand or discern, as above.)
And at the very least, even scriptural literalism requires that one know the scriptures and their pedigree. And how could we know the miracles described therein to be miracles without a knowledge of the Nature from which they deviate?
I'd like to retract the confusion of my original post in order to answer this one. I reread the space.com article, and there do seem to be reasons that it would be easier for such molecules to have formed in space than on Earth. It seems that the primordial formation of our solar system would have been favorable to their production (in some discernable amount), and as all--or at least most--of the stuff in the solar system came from this primordial mixing of gases, it would be reasonable that some simple sugars would be found in asteroids. (Of course, such processes could also be the source of these sugars on Earth, it having formed from the same stuff; asteroid impact would still not be needed for seeding life.)
This is easier to believe than the first chapter of Genesis because it is the product of our own reasoning. God may have created the heavens and the earth, but the jump from belief to knowledge requires that we know how He did so. The Bible does not tell us the processes that took place ("And there was light" isn't very helpful in this regard); it at most gives us the first cause and result ("And God said ..." and the above quote).
Moreover, since God does not speak in the Bible of simple sugars, other planets or asteroids, or penguins, we must, if we are to remain believers, admit that God did not give us every detail. (Do we really need to know about polyhydroxylated compounds in order to be led to belief?) We should not, then, assume that the discovery of every detail that is not mentioned in the Bible is an attempt to contradict the Bible, and thus need not assert the Bilical account as an alternative.
Of course, the order of creation is open to dispute, if God meant that early account to be a scientific explanation of our origins.
I don't understand how the presence of sugars in asteroids suggests that meteors planted sugars on Earth. If sugars can be created through inorganic processes, where's the argument that such processes were not responsible for the sugars on Earth? If they cannot be so created, then sugars are not the seeds required for life, and so there is no reason to suspect that life was seeded by meteors. I don't find the discussion at the end of the article particularly helpful in this regard.
Of course, you're not allowed to sell hair clippings as food. And calling it "human caviar", even if you put a "not for human consumption" label on it, will bring it under the jurisdiction of the FDA.
Let me get this straight. The more conflicts you "are involved in", the more you should pay the UN to send you off into conflicts? The US fights under a UN mandate in the '91 Gulf War, causing a whole host of problems (mostly the result of leaving the losers alive to be pissed off about it), and so ought to contribute more to the UN so it can afford to send ... um ... the US off to ... well ... fulfill UN mandates. Conversely, the US did squat to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and so don't have to pony up nothin'.
Hey, I like you plan! The more the US attacks helpless little villagers, the bigger its Attack Helpless Villager budget gets!
I think you're giving Plato short shrift by bringing over the concept of "chair"; Plato doesn't really say that all the words that we use are Ideas. To use a more Socratic example, we both use the word justice; what do we mean by justice? Or more importantly from a Socratic perspective, what do you mean by justice? Most people's explanation of justice is self-contradictory, or at least does not fully explain what they mean.
What happens if we try to work out these contradictions and clarify their meaning? Eventually, says Socrates via Plato (skipping over many steps), we arrive at the Idea of the Good, in light of which all other ideas make sense. Not only that, but since we as humans experience the world only through our humanity, making sense of these ideas makes sense of all phenomena. In the end, the idea of justice for the philosopher may not appear at all like that of the citizen, the former being informed by a single idea that ties everything together.
Not that I for a moment suggest that this is what the Times article meant in its opposition of Plato and Aristotle, but as we began to discuss Plato, I weighed in. The Times article oversimplifies. Yes, Plato thought you could explain everything with reference to this single idea, but we gained knowledge of this idea by beginning with the various human phenomena, i.e., with the details. And yes, Aristotle thought that science began with a study of the details, but that study was to lead us to first principles from which we could explain all the other details.
The case against Atlantis is stronger than you present it here as being. The opening of the Timaeus presents itself as happening the day after Socrates related action of the Republic, at which point Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates present their version of that city. That is, they present their version of Socrates' made-up regime, changing it where they thought it needed it. Philosopher-kings are replaced with priest-kings, the communism is abandoned, and it is presented as an ancient model to follow rather than a new one.
If you look at what Critias actually says, the ancient Athenians he describes in the story are the citizens of Socrates' city -- he suggests that his story is made up, but in keeping in line with the radically more conservative character of this discussion, it is presented as being true.
That is, the story of Atlantis first told in the Timaeus and Critias is presented as being false! Later people apparently didn't get the joke.
Since the above might seem controversial to some, here's an explanation that might seem less so to them. Plato promises us three dialogues dealing with Atlantis: the Timaeus, the Critias, and the Hermocrates. We never get to see the third, and the second is unfinished. Plato was prevented from finishing by the FBI and various 19th century materialist skeptics.
I'm afraid that Graves made a mistake here: the word in Hebrew is YHWH. H is part of the root. The root would be either HYH or HWH (Y and W can be interchangeable). The linguistic parallel doesn't work.
Could you explain this? Looking through Liddell-Scott, all attested forms begin with a D or Z (Zeus, Deus, Dieos, Dios, Diei, Dii, Di, etc.) Some forms could be explained by a digamma, but I don't see where the o went, and as it tends to dominate contractions, I ought to see some remnant of it.
I saw somewhere that some crazy nut shot at the moon with a lazer and managed to cut "CHA" into it before being stopped by some blue spider, or some such. I hope the mining doesn't destroy the CHA, 'cause I haven't seen it yet.
Why would you think that an ability to communicate is somehow indepedent from observer bias, such that we cannot measure artistic ability -- which you link to communicative ability -- because there is too much observer bias? Isn't observer bias the heart of communication? And thus wouldn't any attempt to measure such ability independent of such 'bias' be an attempt to measure nothing? And thus not at all surprising when we fail?
Or do you suggest that I can speak perfectly good German even if no so-called German-speaker can understand me? Or that what I speak can be classified as good German or bad German without regard to how Germans are speaking?
Catastrophe comes from the Greek katastrephein, to overturn. Kata = down(-ish). Strophe = turn. The Greek for ill star would be something like kakastron, which I don't see in attested use.
Milligan was arrested in 1864 under Congress' 1863 authorization of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, not under the President's earlier declaration. As such, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, deals with the Congressional Act, not with the Presidential declaration.
Congress authorized the President to detain citizens and suspend writs of habeas corpus, but specified that his name be delivered to the court and that, if the grand jury adjourned without indicting him, he should be released. If his name was not furnished to the court within twenty days, he likewise should be released.
Milligan, however, was tried and sentenced to death by a military court. The question before the Supreme Court was whether this military court had jurisdiction to try Milligan (Milligan was a resident of Michigan, which was not in rebellion). Not only had Congress not given the military court such jurisdiction, but the Constitution forbade it.
The Court did not, however, rule that the Act of 1863 suspending the writ of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, nor the President's use of it. Nor did it rule on the President's earlier suspension of the writ by executive order.
No, because any war taxes would have to be constitutionally approved by the Congress, as would any authorization of addition powers or general induction. The emergency powers that the President can invoke have already been approved by Congress upon declaration, by the President, of a state of emergency; a state of war need not be declared.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Debs in Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211. It dealt somewhat with your first question, but the Supreme Court insists that everyone who argues before it be a party to the case. Since declarations of war are a power of the Senate, acting as if such a declaration existed when in fact it did not would be a matter of executive encroachment on the Senate; i.e., the Senate would have to sue the President in order for the Supreme Court's requirement of standing to be fulfilled. Of course, this would be more a matter of checks and balances than judicial action.
Executive encroachment of civil liberties frequently goes to trial, but the government usually wins.
The U.S. President has a variety of emergency powers, but none of them can in any way affect the rules set out in the Constitution. Congress, through the years, has expanded presidential power; these powers came with strings attached. In emergency, some of these strings come off, but the basic constitutional protections remain.
This is not to say that Presidents have not violated the Constitution. Lincoln suspended the right of filing writs of habeas corpus (as did Davis). The loyalty oaths and attendant disqualifications from office may have constituted ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, but the Fourteenth Amendment, in making such disqualifications part of the Constutition, resolved that issue. And let's not forget about internment camps during World War II.
Presidents may act unconstitutionally, but unlike Great Britain, unconstitutional acts, if they go unpunished, do not set a precedent for their constitutionality.
Sleeping, dreaming, waking, weary,
Rises man with eyelids dreary,
Looking to voluptuous lass,
Queezy from the sleeping gas.
In dreamless sleep he passed the years,
Oblivious to all men's fears
That someday might the women see
The path on which they might be free.
Yet see he will, as time unfold,
And finds the fairer sex too bold,
And needless of his violent race
And speaking plainly to his face,
"We have no need of male intrusion
Having mastered your infusion,
And can now our 'selves inject
With something to a sim'lar 'ffect.
"'T is safer for 'veryone involved
And humanity has thence evolved,
Such that not we need burly race
And can at last true love embrace.
"And thus we seek this far expanse,
Far off from home and Nature's chance
To find the spacial alcohol
Which attracts th' 'ttension of us all
"Though of it we will not partake,
And happiness for this mistake:
A brief respite from nat'ral woes
And thrown into dread Nature's throes.
"Nor we will not of it use make
As it our souls will surely break
With gross desires most unhealthful
With consequences too far dreadful.
"And so you must, as species rest,
Comfortable, as if our guest,
Yet ever knowing thou art slave
And our experiments must brave.
"The end of stimulation 't is near
And soon shall we of sin be clear
And we shall sexless show the way
How to keep howling Death at bay."
Unable to reverse the Curse,
Unable to embrace the Worse,
Looking but to future Life
And how to overcome such Wife,
He at long last doth join the crew,
As if in it he always grew,
And soon doth learn their servile way,
And from his manhood so doth stray,
And the alcohol remains uncollected.
Bureau of ATF officials are now on their way to the region looking for their intergalactic still. "Young adults tend to think that moonshining is a fun way to avoid their state's liquor laws, but the "Dukes of Hazaard" is not an accurate portrayal of this dangerous business," said Agt. Washington Fleming, who is leading the operation. "The quanity involved, although small by galactic standards, suggests that this is not being done just for personal use, and that makes it a Federal matter. Also, once they start selling it, they step on the heals of organized crime, and are so pitting themselves against a more ruthless foe than Boss Hog."
Does everything get blamed on America's globalization policies? I know the spread of Wal*Mart breaks apart traditional small-town living, but really now.
You are correct -- it is a conspiracy -- but not for the purpose you allege. The universities with extensive core requirements believe in the old kind of "well-rounded" education, and do not feel that they ought to provide merely technical training. They are intent upon educating fully human beings and will force those seeking a glorified VoTech Institute to at least go through the motions of becoming an educated man/woman. They are able to do this because they have acquired great reputations (or at least aspire to them, in the case of small liberal arts colleges).
One might well answer that many technically proficient applicants choose to go elsewhere in order to avoid their stringent core curriculae, but such schools are not too troubled by this. The most technically proficient will succeed in business without them, and they care more about education than producing the best mid-level programmers --- and it is precisely these mid-level programmers who most need the authority of a well-respected institution on their resume.
So while the average student might complain about having to take courses unrelated to their major, they really do have no choice. And because these universities believe they are benefitting these students, they do not feel bad about the element of coercion involved. Universities have not dropped core requirements unless they were first convinced that there is no human need for a liberal education (or that they cannot provide it to the unwilling); arguments to the tune of "this isn't what I paid for, and I'm paying for this" have little appreciable impact.