taks

agreement with obviously fictitious premises doesn't really matter... what matters is that if they let the onion use the seal without permission, it's an open door for anyone else to do so as well. taks

been around for a while... there may be a wiki on this somewhere. all hail FSM! his noodly appendage has touched me close. taks

so much for journalistic integrity from the bbc. nothing unusual. d'ya think maybe they shoulda gotten more than just quotes from palestinian ministers? maybe, just maybe? taks

everyone of you that believes this is true is really, truly, an ignoramus. does anyone in here have any idea what it means to think for yourselves? the bbc "documentary" quotes a palestinian leader. not bush. unbelievable how easy it is to fool you masses. only ONE response said to remain skeptical out of three pages. the usual suspects show up and sure enough, more bush hating drivel. you believe it simply because you want to. unbelievable. and we wonder why our world is going to hell (metaphorically, of course). how did commissar put it... yeah, we're laughing, not in the laughing with you sort of way, but laughing at you. taks

but he's going too far in claiming that terrorism has been redefined. it has not, and to suppose as such is ludicrous. certainly there are real "freedom fighters," however disillusioned they may be, trying to get the US out. and yes, they do target the military primarily (though their tactics are not nearly as defensible as true military operations). just because it seems bush's view is as such does not matter. and we aren't talking solely about iraq, either. al qaeda is only a part-time player over there anyway, but iraq is a notorious source of funding and channeling of terrorists. stability in that country will go a long way to improving the odds of at least putting the overall terrorist picture in check (i'm not so foolish to think they will ever go away). taks

i could care less what the bush administration says. my point stands as is. al qaeda existed before bush, so did hamas and so did the IRA. they were all three called terrorist organizations before bush, so how did he "redefine" the word? really now. that must be it. i'm just clueless, right? maybe the rest of the world is critical of the US because we have, and use, more than they do? maybe they're just jealous? maybe? maybe if you'd tear yourself from the hegemonic view of the rest of the world, you would know the reason, too. pretty easy to just lump it all into "you're brainwashed, we're all right and you just can't see it." as it is, that the rest of the world is critical of the US is irrelevant. what makes them right and us wrong? why is it that as soon as there's someone threatening them, they suddenly have no problem looking to us to help out? i think the rest of the world's view is at best, hypocritical. tell me which organizations are labeled terrorist but really aren't. not baseless at all. i have already backed up my point with numerous examples. i could care less what the government says, i know what happens. people that strap bombs to their chests and walk into streetside cafes are terrorists by definition. you're attempting to make a case that their views are simply unpopular or against the grain somehow. there is no moral belief system that would ever except such actions as merely "unpopular." hence, you are apologizing for their indefensible behavior. so what. now you're trying to place a moral equivalency on military actions vs. terrorist actions. first of all, there's no equivocation between walking into a cafe with a bomb strapped to your chest, whose only purpose is to kill civilians, and taking out a power plant. none. the distinction is not in the presentation, it is in the actual actions. also, you mention they are trying to "root out hiding terrorists." tell me, really, how many military personnel intentionally hide among civilians? how many hole up in schools? how many take hostages? none? really? wow. you can't draw a moral equivalency no matter how apologetic you are. it just doesn't hold water. excuse me? how is walking into a cafe an attempt to crush the enemy economic-industrial war machine? how is flying into the wtc related to anything other than a symbolic strike on US soil? terrorists are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. they want to cause fear and unrest. they wanted us to end up with less freedom. but they never, ever, thought that they could even dent our economic base or our so-called "war-machine." to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. intent sir, is the reason. so has nearly every other country on earth. out of curiosity, what claim does al qaeda have to any war in the middle east? OBL's home nation disavows any connection to him (as does his own family). he's a loner with no country. he rose to fame fighting the russians in afghanistan. he favors palestinians in gaza, yet they're originally egyptians. he's an outcast and simply picks up on the crisis du jour for his own self aggrandizement. taks

that's not true at all. al qaeda is not called a terrorist group because they want change nor because they are an insurgent group. they're called a terrorist group because they indiscriminately kill innocent people in an attempt to terrorize (terrorize: to coerce by intimidation or fear) them. though there is typically a distinction between government actions (i agree on this point a bit) and rogue organization actions in terms of classification, what i've been referring to as terrorism/terrorists has always been true. contrary to your beliefs, the idea that the word terrorism is applied only to insurgent groups that are "unpopular" is the new definition applied only by people such as yourself, in an attempt to bring legitimacy to their actions. in any rational belief system actions committed by terrorists are morally repugnant and worthy of the moniker terrorism. taks

bush also has a degree from yale, and managed to outdo kerry in the process. either way, posse comitatus is the reason he must change the laws for inside the border action. this is the very reason that he could not go into new orleans without permission. those liberals that are foaming at the mouth over bush's "failure" in new orleans have no idea what kind of **** storm they may have created. unbelievable. btw, yes, though the original intent of the law was for voting purposes, it certainly is a worthy protection for the people of the US. allowing willy-nilly action inside the borders is bound to result in abuse. slippery slope? maybe, but if anything is true, we do have history of the government's unwillingness to give up any power we give it. taks

he probably takes them with lithium. taks

we define the terrorists actions based on what their ultimate goal is, not what is socially implied. the semantics are irrlevant. that the terrorist leaders openly admit their own goals or not is irrelevant. their intent is fear, no matter how you want to define it. UBL (OBL?) wants to frighten. the IRA wants to frighten (well, the radical arm). hamas wants to frighten. of course, once enough people are afraid, other, perhaps more materialistic, goals are attainable (these leaders are tyrants by any definition). and kaftan says he's not making any political statements " taks

it's statements like this that allow the rest of us, those with a shred of sanity, to really claim a moral high ground when debating with you involved. seriously, do you actually think before you post? taks

i think you're letting the ultimate goal of terrorism take a back seat. it is not simply "in opposition" to society. terrorism is, at its heart, designed to terrorize. i.e. the goal of terrorism is to cause fear. terrorists make a lot of lofty claims, but they're all simply excuses, rationalization as it were, for their own tyrannical desires. in this sense, remember, i'm referring to the leaders of the terrorist movements. no doubt the followers believe in what they are doing. either way, any definition that does not include the desire to cause fear is incomplete. taks

the corona is several million degrees... very hot stuff. taks

if it is not receiving HDTV, then you are only getting PAL/NTSC and you have a receiver that fits it to 16:9. i believe it is EDTV? not sure... they just can't seem to make up their minds what will be the leading technology. gromnir, what kaftan said is correct. typically, the cheapest cables will have the cheapest connectors. middle of the line is probably your best bet as skynet suggested. beware, however... i saw one online site advertising silver contacts and made a really good case that silver is a better conductor than gold or beryllium. it is. unfortunately, the reason nobody in the industry (like me) uses silver is because it tarnishes. very bad for a connection. gold and beryllium do not. taks

they never can. it is impossible. god is untestable. hawking has recently even stated that a full understanding of the makeup (the fabric, so to speak) of the universe may never be known. the reasons are along the lines of the goedel's incompleteness theorem concepts. he did not seem too upset. taks

oh, also, w/regard to my earlier concession about forced adaptation, i recant. it is not likely and the current body of evidence suggests a theory known as punctuated equilibrium, caused by none other than our friend mutation. taks

i cursory browse indicates what i thought. the biggest impact with better cables is due to, probably, lower guage wires and maybe protective jacketing to shield for noise. the benefit, btw, is that you can run longer cables. under a few meters, i wouldn't expect any difference in signal quality. taks

digital data itself is either there or not. the problem is due to the fact that there is still an electrical interface. i.e. it's still a signal until detected as a 1 or 0 on the receive side. better cables will likely be less subject to noise and therefore have a lower chance of degradation in the signal (granted, there is probably some form of error checking going on, but i don't know a whole lot about hdmi). in short, yeah, it may make a difference but i doubt it. monster is just waaaay over priced when it comes to cabling, but their stuff is good. maybe even the best (particularly for car stereos). i'll see if i can find anything that makes sense online. taks

actually, ender is apparently smart enough that he can summarily dismiss both BBT and evolution in one fell swoop. it does not matter the enormity of study that has been poured into both, with scant evidence contrary to either theory. these two scientific theories are probably the most studied and written about in history. few other compare with regards to agreement, either. somehow, he woke up one day and saw it all, and decided everyone else, the 99% of the scientific community that has poured their entire lives into respective subjects, were all wrong. they just don't get it apparently. heck, he took two classes and got an A on a paper. coupled with all the insults and outright fabrications, keep in mind this is the guy you all are voting to be moderator. we got to see a real glimpse of his character today. frankly, i'm appalled, and disappointed. taks edit: not only the above, be he also accused all of these scientists of perpetrating some sort of massive fraud on the public due to their "bad science." that's the worst part of it. not only are they (we) all wrong, we're also out to deceive by ignoring contrary evidence. unbelievable.

it is untestable, and therefore unprovable. uh, i tend to disagree with that. the so-called purpose of school is to teach what is known to be at least reasonably true. just because an opinion is popular does not mean it should necessarily be taught in school. you are right, however, that a social studies class is an appropriate place to mention any believ in a higher power. maybe even history class. we do talk about greek and roman religions, for example. taks

ok, i'll concede on this. however, this is still not evidence of ID. yes, i know this. could have been electrical engergy, alien civilization, panspermia, who knows. i don't think we can know unless we meet said civilization or manage to recreate it in a lab. they've managed to create the building blocks, but not life, obviously. eitehr way, evolution is not origin. yes. but that is not "humans came from pond scum." you're oversimplifying it. yes, we do. they've actually managed to create the building blocks (for lack of a better term) in a lab. this is discussed over at talkorigins. because it is not testable. it is purely based on a belief in a creator. also, read the wege strategy and visit the discovery institute. they don't want to just talk about origins, they want to completely replace evolution with a creator. i said evidence, actually. ID does not, nor cannot have any. we cannot observe a creator, nor can we provide any evidence of one. i think your statements are making it pretty clear you don't. curious where you get that i despise religous groups? it's an easy answer to just attribute all this to me when in fact you are flat out wrong. you need to do your homework, EA. and lay off the insults. taks

the difference is that they are searching for dark matter, and should they not find it, they will take it out. it is impossible to test, or find, a creator. see the difference here? dark matter is being tested, while creator cannot be tested. this is how science works. it could be, but evolution does not address origins, again. ID claims that the design is ongoing. i would have no problem if somebody were able to prove that the start from pond scum was kicked off by another advanced civilization. more insults. this is getting old, EA. i'm about science, and science says evolution, not ID. visit talkorigins.com for some real science. yet you've committed numerous logical errors yourself. fallacyfiles.org for starters. i have committed none nor backpedalled on anything. i've backpedalled on nothing. yes and yes. well, not a specific course on evolution, though several that cover it. taks

pretty solid evidence for the existence of gravity. you're also oversimplifying the situtation. many theories abound, actually. there is evidence to support dark energy and matter, but you are obviously unaware of it. you now need to stop commenting on things you do not understand. here your argument falls apart. it is not bad science. the scientific method actually calls for creating a new hypothesis if the evidence does not support observation. for the record, i am not a fan of dark matter/energy. but that's another debate. again, argumentum ad ignorantium. you need evidence. ID has none other than "it must be a higher power." that is not observation. this is also a straw man as the dark matter issue has nothing to do with evolution. taks

you really need to lay off the insults, again. this is very unbecoming of you. FYI, two engineering degrees and a third on the way (phd) plus a daily career doing research and development qualify me as a pretty well trained scientist. were i to claim that made me right, however, would be an appeal to authority which i will not do. it is a testament of my understanding of the scientific method. i never said you do. again, putting words into my mouth. i said something has to be testable to be science. ID is not. ah yes, but there is evidence. that we don't know why it works is not the point. the point is that there is evidence for it, very obvious evidence. actually it does. you are incorrect. gravity on a small scale does not work. the entire reason the planets orbit the sun, and the solar system orbits the galaxy is due to gravity. you are in grave error here. i know full well about the concepts of dark matter. if you would like to get schooled yourself, try visiting badastronomy.com or the boards i frequent at BAUT. taks

actually, you brought up the point of psychology, not me. you claimed that psychology could not have evolved and that this is obvious. this is known as an argument from personal incredulity. apparently you are the lone genius in the world this is obvious to (from the definition of argumentum ad ignoratium). again, your point, i countered noting your fallacy. hardly makes me look bad when you commit a logical fallacy. i never said any traits don't come from evolution. now you are putting words into my mouth (er, keyboard). i'm still waiting for that data. yes. no. i'm sorry, but the psychology argument was yours, not mine. taks