There certainly would be such a Golomb ruler, but most likely it wouldn't be optimal. I wonder if any optimal rulers with more than 4 marks are "complete". They give an example for a 4 mark OGR which is "complete" (0-1-4-6). This is all speculation on my part, IANAM. For all I know, all OGR's contain a "complete" representation.
You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".
OK, for sake of argument, let's assume that you're assumptions are correct. I.e., Marriage:union(male,female)::White:rgb(255,255,255 ). Now, if several people decided that they wanted to use the word "white" to mean purple, (or "bad" to mean cool, or "phat" to mean good looking, etc.), would it seem logical to create a constitutional amendment defining white as being the presence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to light and the absence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to pigments?!? Would you feel that your white picket fence was under attack just because other people called their purple picket fences white? Would you feel that the White House itself was suddenly threatened?!? By your own analogy, can you see how inane a constitutional amendment defining marriage is?!?
And yes, I realize that you did not explicitly state that you either supported the amendment, or that you feel that marriages need to be "defended", but obviously there are some people who do feel this way.
We were split into 3 sections by last name, with my section (middle section - started with H, don't recall where it ended) having the longest line. Nevertheless, I was in and out in under 10 minutes. There were clearly observers present, but they did not seem the least bit intimidating to me, but of course we're Charlottesville, where everyone is nice, public transit actually works, and the weather is always perfect! (OK, maybe I'm overstating it a bit.)
However, if you think allowing more mercury in the water and more particulates in the air is a good thing, then you're welcome to your opinion, but you're just reinforcing the opinion of many here that Bush supporters have their own reality.
Ahh yes the you must be a Bush supporter/Republican dodge. FYI, I'm not a Bush supporter. I also note you take the standard smear attempt by creative addition to what I said thus proving my point. Do you not understand the concept of diminishing returns?
First of all, in my original post, I thought I made it clear that both sides suffer from selective perception:
Personally, I think that both sides have selective perception, but no matter how hard I try to be selective in favor of Bush, I cannot imagine how he is doing anything but
harming the environment.
Secondly, I was not claiming that you did support increased mercury and particulates, merely that if you did, you were welcome to your opinion. However, I can see how this could be misconstrued. My point by making this "creative addition" was to illustrate where I have problems with Bush.
Additionally, I've tried finding the exact text of section 20.105(a) of 10 CFR Part 20, but since it was written more than 20 years ago (I'm not even sure when it was written, but I've found a reference to it in a 1981 paper), I'm finding it difficult. I have noticed the ALARA standard, although admittedly "reasonably achievable" is somewhat arbitrary. Despite the fact that you probably consider me to be a liberal tree-hugging environmental wacko (to quote Rush Limbaugh;) ), I am a proponent of nuclear power as one of our best sources of power currently available (although like almost everyone, I'd prefer fusion to fission once that becomes doable). I am also aware that burning coal actually releases more radioactive wastes into the environment than any nuclear power plant in the US ever has (including 3-mile island!).
Btw, from reading the NRC's FAQ #11, I'm not sure if that 100mr/year quote is accurate. However, it is clear that this FAQ was written by someone who was never forced to take a course in writing technical papers, so I'm not exactly sure if that is what it says or not.
Although I don't agree with the parent's enthusiasm, here's a link describing how the first two towns to have all voters cast their votes have indeed voted for Bush. However, at 16 to 14 and 19 to 7, I think Kerry still has a chance to recover.:)
We did? We laid out explicit rules for the exact consequences of what we would do if Saddam failed to abide by the UN resolution? UN resolution 1441 said explictly that the US is not automatically authorized to invade Iraq in the event of non-compliance. Was there a different resolution that did give us authority? That was what I was talking about. We could have at least attempted to negotiate with France and Friends(tm) into including language that would give us automatic authorization. That would have given us more leverage if (when) Saddam failed for the 7th time (using your statistics) to comply with UN guidelines.
What I'm basically talking about is finesse. It seems to me that when it comes to dealing with most foreign leaders, GWB is short on finesse. Regardless of what you thought of them, Reagan and Clinton had finesse. Bush does not. It remains to be seen whether or not Kerry will. I'm certain he won't be as gifted as Reagan or Clinton, but I have a hard time imagining him as being worse than Bush in the finesse department.
Additionally, what I was suggesting was just one idea that I have come up with. There might be several reasons why it's a bad idea, but I expect the president to have better ideas than I. It doesn't seem to me that Bush does have better ideas.
Regardless, the reason I voted (at 7 AM this morning) for Kerry is largely because of Bush's environmental policies and not because of his foreign policies.
As for the diplomatic questions, it's hard to argue when all we have are suppositions. I think that there are ways to sway countries towards or away from certain positions. You are correct in asserting that you cannot drastically alter their position. However, I feel that Bush's tactics swayed countries away from us, and a skilled politician could have swayed countries towards us. I know that he is not "the diplomat", but he definitely is a diplomat. He has met with Tony Blair, personally, several times talking about how the two countries should proceed. And, I think he's done a good job dealing with Blair.
As for environment policy, sure there are some stupid laws on the books. However, if you think allowing more mercury in the water and more particulates in the air is a good thing, then you're welcome to your opinion, but you're just reinforcing the opinion of many here that Bush supporters have their own reality. (Personally, I think that both sides have selective perception, but no matter how hard I try to be selective in favor of Bush, I cannot imagine how he is doing anything but harming the environment.
Oh, and can you find a reference that backs up your claim about setting limits below that of background radiation? I seriously doubt it. I imagine this is one of those Republican urban legends. (There are Democrat urban legends, as well. What makes you a wise observer is whether or not you can pick out urban legends that support your point of view.)
I'm not sure if that's a Democrat vs. Republican issue or a Clinton vs. Bush issue. Whether or not you like him, you have to admit that Clinton's a good talker. Bush, not so much. (Kerry, not so much, either.)
<sarcasm> But you've forgotten - unlike Kerry, Bush doesn't have any "litmus test" that he's going to apply to the justices that he nominates. All he requires is that they not be "activist" judges. I.e., that they don't disagree with him on what is the correct way to interpret the law.<\sarcasm>
the next president will appoint 3, possibly 4, supreme court justices. now, the court is pretty balanced with a good mix of conservative and liberal judges. the next president will have the power to either keep and disrupt the balance
Call me cynical, but if the next president appoints 3-4 supreme court justices, I don't think either one will attempt to "keep" the balance. Of course, if Kerry is elected, and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, he will have a much harder time getting his ideal candidates on the bench. In fact, I suspect that future nominations will make the Bork and Thomas nominations look tame.
Suppose Chamberlain had lied, and claimed Germany was building new weapons in secret laboratories, and had used that as a pretext for an invasion?
I find it hard to believe that Bush knew that there were no WMD's and chose to make such strong claims about proof of their existance. I think he might have been blinded by what he wanted to see (selective perception), but I seriously doubt that he didn't believe what he said. And despite Michael Moore's claim to the contrary, being wrong does not make you a liar. Keep in mind, that even Russian intelligence suggested that Saddam had WMD's.
So, what if Chamberlain had gotten a letter from Einstein saying that Hitler was creating WMD's, and he chose to believe that, and used it as a reason for invading Germany? Would that be wrong? Perhaps, as the means do not justify the ends. Would it have been evil? Not if he really believed Einstein. Was it wrong of Chamberlain to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler, claiming "it is peace for our time"? Almost definitely.
Now, all of this hypothetical comparison aside (I'm reminded of a sig that asks, "what if there were no hypothetical questions?"). I do want to make it perfectly clear that I'm voting for Kerry tomorrow, because I believe he is best for our country, and best for the world. I think he's best for the environment, and best for peace.
When I think of the area in which Bush has made the most significant contribution (i.e., the area that would not have turned out the same if some other politician, Republican or Democrat, was in office), I think of environmental issues. Go to Google, or any other resource you know of, and research how George W. Bush has rolled back many of the environmental protections put in place by both the Democratic and Republican presidents before him. He clearly has no respect for the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, but I'm certain he will do better in the enviromental domain - and GWB has demonstrated how much influence a president can have in this domain.
If those scandals are as they have been reported by some sources (and not all sources agree on this), then you might be correct with respect to France, Russia, and China. However, I don't believe anyone has made those allegations against Germany. (I could be wronge, and if so, please provide links.) Not surprisingly, France disputes these allegations, and we may never know the whole truth. I do find it difficult to believe that the French president would have been actively supporting Saddam Hussein. Of course, I also found it very difficult to believe (before we invaded Iraq) that we wouldn't find those WMD's shortly after invading. After all, the USA couldn't risk the embarrassment of being wrong on such a pivotal issue, could we?
Even if the French government (and Russian, etc.) were covertly supporting Saddam's regime, they were covertly supporting it. This means we could have used clever diplomatic strategies that would have made it hard for them to not support us. One possibility would have been saying, "OK, you want to give Saddam another chance. We'll compromise on this issue if you agree, in very explicit terms that this is his last chance. If (i.e., when) he violates the terms of this last chance, you will agree with us to launch a full-scale attack on Iraq." Sure, this is not full-proof, but had we gone that extra mile, it would have been much harder to paint us as being over-bearing. And sure, it's possible that Saddam then would have complied with arms inspectors every last request. However, these are some diplomatic paths that could have been explored, but that were not.
Why is it always acceptable--preferable--to refer to anyone with a different belief than ourselves as a ``zealot''? This word is being way overused lately. ``Cease!'' sayeth the style police.
I think that releasing a virus to achieve your ends qualifies one as a zealot. In fact, I would guess that the poster of the parent (this post's grandparent) thread is most likely not a Windows fan, so the underlying belief probably is not different, just what is perceived as acceptable means.
how does "hating" someone have any logical correlation with whether their positions or courses of action are appropriate or inappropriate
I would guess that for many people the causal connection is backwards from what it appears you are suggesting. I.e., people "hate" Bush because they think that he his positions or courses of action are inappropriate. I personally don't hate him, but his positions and courses of action are why I'm voting against him. (Yes, I'm one of those many people who are voting against Bush more so than voting for Kerry. I've never been particularly partisan, but have always thought that respect for the environment was very important.)
the US is in "Iraq" because it was an easy target in the region, period [and to bring freedom, democracy]... This isn't a black-and-white zero-sum game where there is only one reason the US is in Iraq.
I do believe that the reasons you've listed are primary reasons we attacked Iraq. I'm still undecided as to whether the reasons were sufficient. Saddam was an evil person, and only time will tell whether we've helped to secure freedom and democracy for Iraq or whether we've prepared the way for a worse dictator. (The US has a bad track record with this - think Khomeni, etc.) Nevertheless, I do think that there has been significant profiteering going on, (e.g., Haliburton), and that is very disturbing.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine what would have happened had we invaded Germany and removed Hitler instead of ceding the Sudetenland to him. People probably would have said we were overstating the threat, etc. Was Saddam as big a threat as Hitler? (Remember, Hitler had no WMD's either,) Maybe not. But if we had removed Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland, Hitler wouldn't have been as big a threat.
However, even if you believe we should have attacked Iraq, it is hard to believe that Bush followed a well thought out plan. I think a good diplomat could have bargained with France, Germany, and Russia and gotten them on board. I know that seems impossible now, but that's only because Bush has so alienated them that it's difficult for even them to imagine ever helping us.
Of course, my number one reason for voting against Bush is because of the number of policies he has enacted that have rolled back the environmental policies enacted under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.
In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.
Actually, I think this suggests that the government doesn't have enough time on its hands (or is using its time inefficiently). The agents went the quick (and dirty) path of assuming that the allegations were valid, when presumably (taking the article at face value) it would have been easy to demonstrate that they were not.
Of course, even if the complaints were valid, it seems like they were heavy-handed in their approach. A letter to the retailer explaining the scenario and requesting their compliance should have been sufficient (had the complaint been valid).
I'm not even an amateur astronomer but I've been GLUED to these news reports. Didn't Arthur C. Clarke land the Chinese on Titan in 2063 or 3001, only to be eat by a methane-sea monster? Of course, Imperial Earth has Titan colonized.
Actually it was on Europa in 2010. This premise (well, at least the premise of a liquid ocean) was backed up by the Galileo space probe when it reached Europa. Ganymede might also have a liquid ocean, but Europa still looks like the best place to look for life, IMHO. Granted, I'm not holding my breath.
57 to 40? Are you on crack? Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1988), and that was considered a landslide. Reagan beat Mondale 59-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1984), which is an even bigger landslide, but George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and it's not the 80's.
This guy's clearly an example of an earlier
story on slashdot.
Granted, there are a lot of bright people who are pro-Bush. I'm sure the assumption comes from people's first-hand experience that most bright people they know are pro-Kerry. I've spent significant time in both academia and in the commercial world, and my experience is that most (but not all) bright people in academia are anti-Bush (and some are even pro-Kerry), and most (but not all) people in the commercial world (including, but not limited to the bright people) are pro-Bush. Of course, I realize that these generalizations are based on my own experiences, so YMMV.
Personally, I always enjoy finding a bright person who disagrees with me so I can understand an intelligent alternative view point. Frequently the differences center around your priorities and moral beliefs. E.g., if you're pro-life and pro-environment think that overtuning Roe v. Wade is more important than anything else, Bush is a logical choice. If however, you are think that the environment is more important than anything else, anti-Bush is a logical choice. (Seriously, it's hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the environment than he has.) There are other reasons to support either belief, and I have made obviously over-simplified statements just to illustrate that differing priorities can lead to differing logical choices, even if both people have the same moral stances and agree on the facts. (Big "if" of course.)
I doubt that it will be entirely successful, but will be happy if I'm proven wrong. Nevertheless, I'm certain that we (as a community) will learn much by studying its shortcomings. I'm really excited about the project!
I hasten to add that when they claim
The brain region they are trying to replace is the hippocampus, which is vital for forming memories. The hippocampus has a well-understood three-part circuit. It also has a regular repeating structure, so elements of all three parts of the hippocampal circuit can be kept in a fully functional state, even in small slices in a culture dish.
my reaction is "I don't think that word [well-understood] means what you think it means."
Actually, it's not quite that simple. As someone whose research is in modeling the hippocampal region CA3 (about 2.5 million neurons in humans, 250k neurons in rats), I can tell you that the connectivity of the system is a very important variable. And there is still much we don't know about the connectivity of the human brain. Furthermore, there are hundreds of different types of neurons in the human brain. Why so many different types if only 2 or 3 would do? Seems evolution took an inefficient path - unless, as is probably the case, the differences in the neuron types are crucial for the human computer to work the way it does. Granted, some differences might be due to speed or energy efficiencies which are not absolutely critical for early stages, but I suspect that many differences have to do with the software (or wetware in this case) that makes us intelligent.
After we've solved that minor problem, I think teaching the system will be relatively trivial. I.e., if we understand the wetware enough to reconstruct it, we most likely understand how its inputs relate to our inputs, etc., and we could teach it much the same as we teach a human child. Of course, we might also figure out a better way to teach it, and in so doing we might even find a better way to teach human children. (Some of our research has recreated certain known best learning strategies, it is probably only a matter of time before simulators disover a better one!)
Slashdot Mirror
There certainly would be such a Golomb ruler, but most likely it wouldn't be optimal. I wonder if any optimal rulers with more than 4 marks are "complete". They give an example for a 4 mark OGR which is "complete" (0-1-4-6). This is all speculation on my part, IANAM. For all I know, all OGR's contain a "complete" representation.
OK, for sake of argument, let's assume that you're assumptions are correct. I.e., Marriage:union(male,female)::White:rgb(255,255,255 ). Now, if several people decided that they wanted to use the word "white" to mean purple, (or "bad" to mean cool, or "phat" to mean good looking, etc.), would it seem logical to create a constitutional amendment defining white as being the presence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to light and the absence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to pigments?!? Would you feel that your white picket fence was under attack just because other people called their purple picket fences white? Would you feel that the White House itself was suddenly threatened?!? By your own analogy, can you see how inane a constitutional amendment defining marriage is?!?
And yes, I realize that you did not explicitly state that you either supported the amendment, or that you feel that marriages need to be "defended", but obviously there are some people who do feel this way.
In Charlottesville we use eSlate, which unfortunately has the appearance at least of being unverifiable. (Nevertheless, we are the best city in the US!)
We were split into 3 sections by last name, with my section (middle section - started with H, don't recall where it ended) having the longest line. Nevertheless, I was in and out in under 10 minutes. There were clearly observers present, but they did not seem the least bit intimidating to me, but of course we're Charlottesville, where everyone is nice, public transit actually works, and the weather is always perfect! (OK, maybe I'm overstating it a bit.)
Secondly, I was not claiming that you did support increased mercury and particulates, merely that if you did, you were welcome to your opinion. However, I can see how this could be misconstrued. My point by making this "creative addition" was to illustrate where I have problems with Bush.
Additionally, I've tried finding the exact text of section 20.105(a) of 10 CFR Part 20, but since it was written more than 20 years ago (I'm not even sure when it was written, but I've found a reference to it in a 1981 paper), I'm finding it difficult. I have noticed the ALARA standard, although admittedly "reasonably achievable" is somewhat arbitrary. Despite the fact that you probably consider me to be a liberal tree-hugging environmental wacko (to quote Rush Limbaugh ;) ), I am a proponent of nuclear power as one of our best sources of power currently available (although like almost everyone, I'd prefer fusion to fission once that becomes doable). I am also aware that burning coal actually releases more radioactive wastes into the environment than any nuclear power plant in the US ever has (including 3-mile island!).
Btw, from reading the NRC's FAQ #11, I'm not sure if that 100mr/year quote is accurate. However, it is clear that this FAQ was written by someone who was never forced to take a course in writing technical papers, so I'm not exactly sure if that is what it says or not.
Although I don't agree with the parent's enthusiasm, here's a link describing how the first two towns to have all voters cast their votes have indeed voted for Bush. However, at 16 to 14 and 19 to 7, I think Kerry still has a chance to recover. :)
We did? We laid out explicit rules for the exact consequences of what we would do if Saddam failed to abide by the UN resolution? UN resolution 1441 said explictly that the US is not automatically authorized to invade Iraq in the event of non-compliance. Was there a different resolution that did give us authority? That was what I was talking about. We could have at least attempted to negotiate with France and Friends(tm) into including language that would give us automatic authorization. That would have given us more leverage if (when) Saddam failed for the 7th time (using your statistics) to comply with UN guidelines.
What I'm basically talking about is finesse. It seems to me that when it comes to dealing with most foreign leaders, GWB is short on finesse. Regardless of what you thought of them, Reagan and Clinton had finesse. Bush does not. It remains to be seen whether or not Kerry will. I'm certain he won't be as gifted as Reagan or Clinton, but I have a hard time imagining him as being worse than Bush in the finesse department.
Additionally, what I was suggesting was just one idea that I have come up with. There might be several reasons why it's a bad idea, but I expect the president to have better ideas than I. It doesn't seem to me that Bush does have better ideas.
Regardless, the reason I voted (at 7 AM this morning) for Kerry is largely because of Bush's environmental policies and not because of his foreign policies.
As for the diplomatic questions, it's hard to argue when all we have are suppositions. I think that there are ways to sway countries towards or away from certain positions. You are correct in asserting that you cannot drastically alter their position. However, I feel that Bush's tactics swayed countries away from us, and a skilled politician could have swayed countries towards us. I know that he is not "the diplomat", but he definitely is a diplomat. He has met with Tony Blair, personally, several times talking about how the two countries should proceed. And, I think he's done a good job dealing with Blair.
As for environment policy, sure there are some stupid laws on the books. However, if you think allowing more mercury in the water and more particulates in the air is a good thing, then you're welcome to your opinion, but you're just reinforcing the opinion of many here that Bush supporters have their own reality. (Personally, I think that both sides have selective perception, but no matter how hard I try to be selective in favor of Bush, I cannot imagine how he is doing anything but harming the environment.
Oh, and can you find a reference that backs up your claim about setting limits below that of background radiation? I seriously doubt it. I imagine this is one of those Republican urban legends. (There are Democrat urban legends, as well. What makes you a wise observer is whether or not you can pick out urban legends that support your point of view.)
I'm not sure if that's a Democrat vs. Republican issue or a Clinton vs. Bush issue. Whether or not you like him, you have to admit that Clinton's a good talker. Bush, not so much. (Kerry, not so much, either.)
<sarcasm> But you've forgotten - unlike Kerry, Bush doesn't have any "litmus test" that he's going to apply to the justices that he nominates. All he requires is that they not be "activist" judges. I.e., that they don't disagree with him on what is the correct way to interpret the law.<\sarcasm>
Call me cynical, but if the next president appoints 3-4 supreme court justices, I don't think either one will attempt to "keep" the balance. Of course, if Kerry is elected, and the Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, he will have a much harder time getting his ideal candidates on the bench. In fact, I suspect that future nominations will make the Bork and Thomas nominations look tame.
I find it hard to believe that Bush knew that there were no WMD's and chose to make such strong claims about proof of their existance. I think he might have been blinded by what he wanted to see (selective perception), but I seriously doubt that he didn't believe what he said. And despite Michael Moore's claim to the contrary, being wrong does not make you a liar. Keep in mind, that even Russian intelligence suggested that Saddam had WMD's.
So, what if Chamberlain had gotten a letter from Einstein saying that Hitler was creating WMD's, and he chose to believe that, and used it as a reason for invading Germany? Would that be wrong? Perhaps, as the means do not justify the ends. Would it have been evil? Not if he really believed Einstein. Was it wrong of Chamberlain to cede the Sudetenland to Hitler, claiming "it is peace for our time"? Almost definitely.
Now, all of this hypothetical comparison aside (I'm reminded of a sig that asks, "what if there were no hypothetical questions?"). I do want to make it perfectly clear that I'm voting for Kerry tomorrow, because I believe he is best for our country, and best for the world. I think he's best for the environment, and best for peace.
When I think of the area in which Bush has made the most significant contribution (i.e., the area that would not have turned out the same if some other politician, Republican or Democrat, was in office), I think of environmental issues. Go to Google, or any other resource you know of, and research how George W. Bush has rolled back many of the environmental protections put in place by both the Democratic and Republican presidents before him. He clearly has no respect for the environment. I'm not a huge fan of Kerry, but I'm certain he will do better in the enviromental domain - and GWB has demonstrated how much influence a president can have in this domain.
If those scandals are as they have been reported by some sources (and not all sources agree on this), then you might be correct with respect to France, Russia, and China. However, I don't believe anyone has made those allegations against Germany. (I could be wronge, and if so, please provide links.) Not surprisingly, France disputes these allegations, and we may never know the whole truth. I do find it difficult to believe that the French president would have been actively supporting Saddam Hussein. Of course, I also found it very difficult to believe (before we invaded Iraq) that we wouldn't find those WMD's shortly after invading. After all, the USA couldn't risk the embarrassment of being wrong on such a pivotal issue, could we?
Even if the French government (and Russian, etc.) were covertly supporting Saddam's regime, they were covertly supporting it. This means we could have used clever diplomatic strategies that would have made it hard for them to not support us. One possibility would have been saying, "OK, you want to give Saddam another chance. We'll compromise on this issue if you agree, in very explicit terms that this is his last chance. If (i.e., when) he violates the terms of this last chance, you will agree with us to launch a full-scale attack on Iraq." Sure, this is not full-proof, but had we gone that extra mile, it would have been much harder to paint us as being over-bearing. And sure, it's possible that Saddam then would have complied with arms inspectors every last request. However, these are some diplomatic paths that could have been explored, but that were not.
I think that releasing a virus to achieve your ends qualifies one as a zealot. In fact, I would guess that the poster of the parent (this post's grandparent) thread is most likely not a Windows fan, so the underlying belief probably is not different, just what is perceived as acceptable means.
I would guess that for many people the causal connection is backwards from what it appears you are suggesting. I.e., people "hate" Bush because they think that he his positions or courses of action are inappropriate. I personally don't hate him, but his positions and courses of action are why I'm voting against him. (Yes, I'm one of those many people who are voting against Bush more so than voting for Kerry. I've never been particularly partisan, but have always thought that respect for the environment was very important.)
I do believe that the reasons you've listed are primary reasons we attacked Iraq. I'm still undecided as to whether the reasons were sufficient. Saddam was an evil person, and only time will tell whether we've helped to secure freedom and democracy for Iraq or whether we've prepared the way for a worse dictator. (The US has a bad track record with this - think Khomeni, etc.) Nevertheless, I do think that there has been significant profiteering going on, (e.g., Haliburton), and that is very disturbing.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine what would have happened had we invaded Germany and removed Hitler instead of ceding the Sudetenland to him. People probably would have said we were overstating the threat, etc. Was Saddam as big a threat as Hitler? (Remember, Hitler had no WMD's either,) Maybe not. But if we had removed Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland, Hitler wouldn't have been as big a threat.
However, even if you believe we should have attacked Iraq, it is hard to believe that Bush followed a well thought out plan. I think a good diplomat could have bargained with France, Germany, and Russia and gotten them on board. I know that seems impossible now, but that's only because Bush has so alienated them that it's difficult for even them to imagine ever helping us.
Of course, my number one reason for voting against Bush is because of the number of policies he has enacted that have rolled back the environmental policies enacted under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton.
You must have missed this one:
690 * 2 =
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
A 6'4" person in a burka, would probably stand out - just my opinion. :)
"Punter"?!? I mean I know what a lorrey, a lift, a boot, a bonnet, and petrol are, but "punter"? Why can't you guys speak English? :)
You're assuming that Bush has read and understood the FMA. Are you sure you want to make that assumption? :)
Actually, I think this suggests that the government doesn't have enough time on its hands (or is using its time inefficiently). The agents went the quick (and dirty) path of assuming that the allegations were valid, when presumably (taking the article at face value) it would have been easy to demonstrate that they were not.
Of course, even if the complaints were valid, it seems like they were heavy-handed in their approach. A letter to the retailer explaining the scenario and requesting their compliance should have been sufficient (had the complaint been valid).
Actually it was on Europa in 2010. This premise (well, at least the premise of a liquid ocean) was backed up by the Galileo space probe when it reached Europa. Ganymede might also have a liquid ocean, but Europa still looks like the best place to look for life, IMHO. Granted, I'm not holding my breath.
This guy's clearly an example of an earlier story on slashdot.
(I kid, I kid.)
Granted, there are a lot of bright people who are pro-Bush. I'm sure the assumption comes from people's first-hand experience that most bright people they know are pro-Kerry. I've spent significant time in both academia and in the commercial world, and my experience is that most (but not all) bright people in academia are anti-Bush (and some are even pro-Kerry), and most (but not all) people in the commercial world (including, but not limited to the bright people) are pro-Bush. Of course, I realize that these generalizations are based on my own experiences, so YMMV.
Personally, I always enjoy finding a bright person who disagrees with me so I can understand an intelligent alternative view point. Frequently the differences center around your priorities and moral beliefs. E.g., if you're pro-life and pro-environment think that overtuning Roe v. Wade is more important than anything else, Bush is a logical choice. If however, you are think that the environment is more important than anything else, anti-Bush is a logical choice. (Seriously, it's hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the environment than he has.) There are other reasons to support either belief, and I have made obviously over-simplified statements just to illustrate that differing priorities can lead to differing logical choices, even if both people have the same moral stances and agree on the facts. (Big "if" of course.)
I doubt that it will be entirely successful, but will be happy if I'm proven wrong. Nevertheless, I'm certain that we (as a community) will learn much by studying its shortcomings. I'm really excited about the project!
I hasten to add that when they claim
my reaction is "I don't think that word [well-understood] means what you think it means."Actually, it's not quite that simple. As someone whose research is in modeling the hippocampal region CA3 (about 2.5 million neurons in humans, 250k neurons in rats), I can tell you that the connectivity of the system is a very important variable. And there is still much we don't know about the connectivity of the human brain. Furthermore, there are hundreds of different types of neurons in the human brain. Why so many different types if only 2 or 3 would do? Seems evolution took an inefficient path - unless, as is probably the case, the differences in the neuron types are crucial for the human computer to work the way it does. Granted, some differences might be due to speed or energy efficiencies which are not absolutely critical for early stages, but I suspect that many differences have to do with the software (or wetware in this case) that makes us intelligent.
After we've solved that minor problem, I think teaching the system will be relatively trivial. I.e., if we understand the wetware enough to reconstruct it, we most likely understand how its inputs relate to our inputs, etc., and we could teach it much the same as we teach a human child. Of course, we might also figure out a better way to teach it, and in so doing we might even find a better way to teach human children. (Some of our research has recreated certain known best learning strategies, it is probably only a matter of time before simulators disover a better one!)