Posts by EnderX

Scientists the world over agree that CO2 emissions are the driving force behind global warming, a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven.

Consensus is not proof. In fact, consensus tends to be in some cases the enemy of scientific debate, if it becomes solidified enough. Opposing evidence is simply buried, rather than being displayed and debated.

And you do realize that the 'global warming' bit is just one of the two seesaw issues that seem to pop up over time? The other is claims of 'global cooling', sometimes accompanied by statements warning of a new ice age ahead. In theory, that -might- actually have something to it; I believe the interglacials are generally held to be much shorter than the glacial periods, and some of what I've seen indicates that we may be nearing the end of the current one. I have no clue how accurate that information is, nor do I hold to it myself. I merely state that I've seen it.

Actually I think the problem here is that the Kyoto Agreement did not take economic factors into account, but it certainly was not designed to cripple the world's economies. It was designed to have a global effort to affect the way in which we rely on fossil fuels and specifically how the use of these fuels is compounding the problem of climate change. After all, without a global effort how can we get such a global issue to fruition?

Then how come some …

A single big volcanic eruption will release as much CO2 (as well as other "greenhouse gasses") into the atmosphere as all of humanity combined does in several hundred years.

That's another thing the greenies don't want you to know and will blatantly publish lies to have you believe otherwise (lies which Wikipedia and the world press laps up like gospel).

Mind pointing to some statistics on that?

On the topic of climate change, Australia's new Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, has promised to ratify the Kyoto Agreement as one of his first orders of business. This means that the US is the only developed nation to refuse to sign. What is truly ironic is that the US produces roughly 30% of the world's CO2, so without them the agreement is pretty pointless. It's like trying to optimise an algorithm but leaving 30% of it as is. :P

From what I've heard, the Kyoto agreement would have little effect on actual climate. The main result would seem to be that any country which attempted to abide by it would watch their own economy plummet. Most of Europe, for example, doesn't seem to be doing to well according to Kyoto standards.

And from what I've read, I believe that the US did sign the treaty, under President William Jefferson Clinton. He simply never sent it to the Congress for ratification, on the grounds that they would have rejected it out of hand. I'm not certain how accurate this is, however.

think carefully. the people of the earth are already interfering, hence climate change. Or what do you think we are doing by pumping stacks of CO2 into our atmosphere?

The same thing that volcanoes have been doing for eons now?

The petition is for people to stop interfering with mother nature so that the climate can return to normal. Unless of course you believe that the large amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere is natural and as such a part of mother nature.

Can you prove that they aren't? If so, may I specifically see your proofs for the purpose of investigation?

Again, are we only working with the concept of physical dimensions? Because by some definitions I've seen, a non-physical structure could be defined in terms of vast numbers of dimensions.

setarimE barA detinU

the church has been corrupt throughout history too.

Which church?

I believe that people here posting are all non-muslims and I also believe you people are much more intelligent... so you may have heard Quran says this and that but do remember you havnot read Quran or understood it while who ever read it accepted it and that is the reason there exists so many Muslims today.

For how long? I've heard of several instances where those who believed the Quran later abandoned it and Islam in favor of the Bible and Christianity. And from what I understand, many of those who did so also died for this choice. Can you prove this to be inaccurate?

Or for another example: I have heard of a text called, in the english language at least, something like 'The True Furquan'. It was, if I recall correctly, supposed to be something like a rebuttal to the Quran. When I did a google search on this, the first item that came up was the following: http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=6299. I admit I only read the first post and part of the second. (Basically, what showed on my screen without trying to scroll the image.) The commentary in just these posts was interesting, though. Care to expand?

Also Quran doesnt order any non muslim to be killed. Quran says to defeat the enemies of GOD. now see who can be enemy of GOD. Ofcourse we all are note here enemies of GOD... we are not trying to disobey GOD.

Just to get this clear, …

How are you defining dimension here? Only the physical dimensions?

Agent orange is normally contaminated with other chemicals that cause mutations. Again, you run the danger of mutating the mosquitos into giant Hollywood-style mosquitos.

Unless you're proposing that several interactive mutations would occur all at once, I'd say go for it. From what I recall of general insect biology, the suckers'd be so big they wouldn't even be able to stand up, and their respiratory systems aren't designed for very large sizes.

[edit: forgot about this bit] I do agree that enforcing racial diversity is a dead weight to carry around. But a lot of those problems are probably regional as well. It's sad that racial walls in the US (and possibly elsewhere) still exist to the point that companies bring up how much their hiring process considered racial background. One might have expected that we'd reach a level of racial equality after so many decades that a true meritocracy might dominate the hiring process. Alas, that time is yet to come... Then again, maybe it has occurred, but companies are just going on and on about the racial issue even though they are hiring solely based on merit. I don't know how HR departments make their decisions so I can't say for sure one way or the other, but the first half of this paragraph is the perspective I get.

From what I've read, in many ways, the companies do still tend to consider race in their hire/fire decisions. This is not because of any inherent racial bias for or against any group on the part of the company, however, it's out of fear of getting sued on racial grounds.

Example: Company 'A' hires two people. One is white, the other is black. Except for this difference, they have the same aptitude for the job. However, one of the two is willing to work hard at the job, while the other prefers to laze along.

If the lazy one …

2. What point on the earth's surface is highest above sea level?

The summit of Mount Everest, on the border of China and Bhutan.

Are you completely certain about this? I vaguely recall reading a few years back about satellite evidence that seemed to indicate that K2 was higher than Everest. Admittedly, it wasn't by much, but that would still change the answer if correct.

I have been working on a program designed to read information from an Access database and display it on the screen. As my main development box doesn't have a copy of Access on it, I copied the data over to a PostgreSQL database and attempted to work from that. Now, having gotten the program working there, I was attempting to set it back up to receive data from the Access database.

My first SQL statement is throwing an error. The statement is "select distinct(deptCD) from sessionD where custID = '2' and dt >= '2004-1-01' and dt < '2004-3-31'". The error I am getting is 'Data type mismatch in criteria expression'. Would anyone please be willing to explain to me what it is I'm doing wrong with my statement?

I believe, Sturm, that she was putting the focus on the giving...that is, as opposed to the 'GIMME! GIMME!' mentality that some people seem to have about the season. THAT, I would say, is what really supports 'American materialism'.

its also a sword

If I'm reading wikipedia right, it's two kinds of swords.

Y'all know that a claymore is a shaped-charge anti-personell mine that can be set off either remotely or by incursion,right?

If we didn't before, I'm sure we do now.

So, if we all stop eating and sit outside, this nation will the wealthiest in the world!

Only so long as you continue to work productively. Or, to put it a bit more clearly, some consumption (in those areas if nowhere else) is required to keep production at maximum effeciency. Hungry, sore (from sleeping on the ground outside) workers don't tend to do much to help create an effecient workplace.

If someone repeatedly strolled into my house whenever he felt like it and all that I did when I discovered him was to escort him to the door and politely ask him to not do it again, do you think he's going to take my request very seriously?

If I say yes, do I have to keep a straight face while saying it? Because if so, I'm afraid I can't.

My handwriting is getting worse day by day.

Hand...writing?

Presently, drunk driving seems to be a prerequisite for leadership. Both our president and vice president have been cited for drunk driving in their younger days (see Wikipedia).

And what death quota do you claim they have logged? The original thrust of the leading statement wasn't about the drunk driving.

You just THOUGHT you saw them, just like many people believe they see UFOs :) What you saw has some physical explaination such as a shadow, but it was not a ghost. But if YOU want to believe there are ghosts, why not, no harm done.

Not necessarily true. It didn't have to have a physical explanation, even if it wasn't a ghost.

I am a Christian, a believer on and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such, I do not believe that any member of humankind gets to stick around after our appointment with death. In other words, no ghosts. (At least as the term is normally used.) However, I also believe in the existence of other non-physical beings; namely angels, both unfallen ('proper' angels) and fallen (aka demons). And it is quite possible that someone could have a run-in with one of these (fallen especially) and come away thinking they'd had a run-in with a ghost.

I acknowledge that your explanation is a bit more likely, AD, but it's not absolute...except in the minds of those who refuse to admit the possibility of anything beyond the physical.

Actually, they do say that I think.

Claymore mines say THIS SIDE TOWARD ENEMY

Considering how a claymore works, that's not surprising. A bit dismaying perhaps, but not surprising.

From what point?

My guesses, assuming a 'marker' location in the middle of the North American continent:

1. East -> Florida. I think the Keys give it enough distance to outmeasure Maine, and the two of them look, from the maps, to be the best bets for easternmost distance.

2. West -> Hawaii (sp?). Jabbed out in the middle of the Pacific ocean. (Although I suppose that the Alaskan islands might make that the correct answer instead.)

3. North -> Alaska. I'm assuming that the outer edges of the states are being used to mark the measurements here.

4. South -> I want to say Texas, although I'm not certain about that.

Perhaps we are already in the trash. Perhaps we started out in the trash to begin with and grew and developed in the manner of unchecked mold. Does it really make any difference at this point?

Yes. If we're not in the trash yet, then the experiment still has worth. If we are, as you put it, an 'unchecked mold', then we'll need to worry about when the Lysol and fungicides get broken out.

US sold missiles to Iran shortly after they released the hostages (duh, does this seem suspicious?) and gave money to SA rebels

Don't know enough about the situation, please allow me to study it and get back to you.

US supported the Shah of Iran
US support Noriega
US supported Marcos

And what was their opposition, again?

US supported, you know, that guy who used to run Iraq

Or was it just perhaps a way of bleeding off another enemy...?

The US invaded Iraq looking for nuclear weapons but did not find them but did not even notice that syria, right next door, did have them (well, actually, was just getting close).

Would you mind specifying where your source for 'nuclear' in that sentance is? From the news reports at the time, I was under the impression that any Weapon of Mass Destruction, be it nuke, bio, or chem in nature, would qualify. And no, we didn't know whether or not he had them; that would have required that we be allowed to inspect, which we weren't. Thus, the possible threat had to be taken at full value.

France supported the US before it was a country

A favor for which we were duly grateful, and have returned (in modified form) a couple of times since then.

"Just another way in which France always immediately surrenders when threatened

I hear you ignorant twits repeat this lie so often I am beginning to think …

He already did once, if you believe the Bible.

Technically, not all of mankind.

Might be interesting...although in such cases I'm reminded of a quote I saw once.

"Software engineering is a race between programmers, who strive to produce fool-proof software, and the universe, which strives to produce bigger fools."
(Underneath: "So far, the universe is winning.")

I stick by my statement, Lardmeister.

Look at it this way, the country is better off with him on vacation! "Read my lips, no new war!"

It's not a new war. Although some of the fronts are somewhat new, this war has been raging on for a couple of decades+ now. It simply wasn't something that got brought to the attention of the average person until the 9/11 Strike took place.

@bumsfeld: Mind explaining what your comment has to do with the discussion at hand, other than being a slur against those you've named?

But of course!

Consider: In the US, one popular brand of bottled water goes by the name 'Evian'. Spell that backwards.

They could. The communications would take a lot longer than they'd like, no doubt, given that the light-lag between the two would be increasing, (I'm assuming light or radio communications in vacuum here, as that's going to hit the fastest possible trasmission) but the worlds themselves could communicate. It'd probably just be a multi-generational project, that's all.

Kuwait ?

Yes.

I'm not the one who came up with those numbers. And from what I've seen, the really rich, as you've just described, tend to be democrats...at least going by historical donations to the two parties.

1 + 4, maybe?

Tax cuts generally are good for (almost) everyone. The only people who don't directly benefit from them are those who don't pay taxes in the first place, and even they benefit from some of the side effects.

Define "Rich Folks", please. Are we working off of the Democratic Party's apparent definition of 'Family of four with combined annual income of $65,000.00 USD'? If so, then it's not a lie; if not, we'll discuss the issue further.

Exactly how would NAFTA have eliminated illegal immigration? I've never heard that one before.

First I want verified scientific PROOF that a carbon footprint is dangerous, before anybody puts out labels. All we have right now is political blather, bad science, and religious fervor from environmentalists.

WHAT?!!! Are you crazy?! OF COURSE it's bad! The High Gore himself said so!...didn't he?

[Note: The preceding comment is intended only for humorous purposes, and does not reflect the views of the author.]

@zandiago...
is it bangladesh....
now guess this...
gaairulb

Query: Bulgaria?

aiukwt

As an atheist, why should I fear the end of existence more than any other? Because I have no delusions of "something better" to look forward to after death?

How about because of the probable consequences if you have chosen incorrectly in this issue?

Should I regret the lack of what I feel are false hopes and mollifications? It can't be changed - being human is 100% fatal. You are going to die. Get used to it.

Should you regret the lack? Probably not; if you're wrong, you'll be regretting them enough in the end.

If anything, you are obviously much more afraid than the atheist, as you cannot even think about facing the end of existence without a promise that something better awaits beyond it.

Are you sure that's fear? I'd call it simply expectation, possibly eager expectation.

Live your life now as best you may. Do what is right for the sake of it being right, not just for marks on some after-death scorecard towards imagined rewards.

And how do you determine what is right in the first place? Pretty much every version of right/wrong I've seen stems from religious beliefs.

If you look at the time you have on earth as all that you're going to get, you might just be more inclined to value it more and do something worthwhile with it. On the other hand, if you think of it as a waiting and evaluation period that you must endure to …

I was hoping somebody would see my sarcasm

I recommend sarcasm tags, in that case.

Did you worry about your non-existence before you were born?

No. By definition, if I'm not there, then how would I be able to worry about it? And I'm not going to worry about my end either; I know the final score, even if others will immediately accuse me of being a fanatic for saying so.

When your time is up, choose one of the following sentences which sums up your life.
The world is a better place because you lived (he will be missed).
The world is a better place because you are now dead (good riddance).

Who's getting to speak? My friends and family, or those who hated me while I was alive? I'm not well-enough known, nor do I ever plan to be well enough known, that there will be neutral parties in that equation.

Should you be afraid if you choose the wrong one?
I mean, a roulette table with several thousand squares, and you've got to risk it all on one square - man, I'd be bricking it.
Do gods still exist if there is no one to believe in them?

Should you be afraid if you choose the wrong one? Given that all major religions proclaiming deities (Buddhism, if I recall correctly, doesn't properly have a 'deity', just a founder/leader/example) [note: example, not exhaustive list] tend to declare eternal damnation/destruction for those who don't follow, then yeah, I'd say you should be afraid. So pick wisely.

By the end of the crash, inside of it.

So, you're saying that, if you have two belligerent nations, both of which are vehement enemies of your own nation, you'd be against the idea of helping them to bleed each other off? To me, that idea makes sense.

The only thing that bothers me, did Osama know that the towers would collapse so easily?

I can't quote the source as being 100% accurate, as I've only seen it in the one place and haven't yet attempted to verify it, but a chapter in a book I was reading dealt with fire suppression, using the WTC as an example. The author claimed that Osama himself didn't expect the towers to collapse (although how he determined that I don't know), simply for them to be seriously damaged.

He also used poison gas when he invaded Iran. I read that precursers were then supplied by the US. Somebody wasn't very honest here!

Expand, please.

If you'd prefer, the US could go around and depose all the corrupt governments guilty of this, but somehow I think the rest of the world would frown on such action.

Forget the rest of the world for a moment, the US citizens who'd like us to provide world welfare would be the first to start clamoring if we tried that.

ailartsuA

Yes, it's worth reading, but also keep seeking out information beyond Orson Scott Card's column and read through a few of his other postings before deciding how much weight you will give him.

Considering that Card's column is simply serving as a second witness to an argument I'd previously seen, I'm willing to give it more weight than you'd probably like. I don't have to agree with him (and having read some of his other works, I'm willing to say that in some cases I don't) for him to be accurate, and my agreeing with him doesn't automatically protect him from inaccuracy. However, if he (or any other individual in this or any other argument) is willing to provide evidence instead of imprecations or "No, you can't see that and no, you can't ask why" comments, then he has a better chance of being believed by those who haven't hardened their minds.

For those who care: 'Hardening' a mind, as I use the term, is the attempt to make it proof against any argument. A closed mind could theoretically be opened by some new evidence; a hardened mind most likely would not be so affected.

>It seems like once they arrive then it's like paradise.
in what way? they have to work so hard for everything, life is really hard fro them.

As compared to their original conditions in Mejico?

>yet they contribute nothing to society
they take all the jobs lazy americans don't want. they come here to work, and amercians are here to be lazy.

I'll agree on this one, actually. There are plenty of Americans who could take the jobs illegals do, but they simply choose not to because somebody 'owes' them a better one. Guess who sells that idea?

>Why the hell should we, the American taxpayers, pay for these criminals? It's wrong!
they are NOT CRIMINALS. they're looking for a better life in the land of opportunity.

They broke the law when they chose to short-circuit the normal, legal immigration process. Or are you saying that because they show some skill at slipping across a rather poorly-guarded border, they should be given preferential treatement against those immigrants, of whatever nation, who choose to go through the legal steps to become an American Citizen?

Don't you think that's how the native americans felt when we invaded their lands? i've always thought that this was the land of opportunity, but i guess it's canada.

Okay, then, if you're going to bring the 'original inhabitant' argument into play, we'll skip Mejico altogether. Instead, we'll ship our illegals off to Spain and let them handle the issue.

i …

Besides the fact that there are still conspiracy theorists over six years later?

Although given that there are still people who believe in conspiracies behind the JFK murder, etc...perhaps that's not so strange.