Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is *unscientific*. That is a valid statement that is not based on any faith. Turning unscientific to delusional changes the meaning significantly though. Unscientific simply means the belief is not based in science, delusional means the belief has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. So again, someone who says everyone who believes in a god is delusional (regardless as to what precedes the statement to qualify it) is making a declaration of faith. Since science is the best way we have of understanding and testing reality, then unscientific DOES mean that it has no basis in reality. So the statement There is no scientific evidence of any god therefore belief in god is delusional is NOT a decleration of faith. You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote. Your own words say it: ...science is the *best* way we have of understanding and testing reality... (emphasis added) Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific method); We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence. Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not religion. That being the reason for the subject line. I'll post it again in this post in case you accidentally missed it. I wrote: -- But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. Basically the line between logic based and faith based athiesm is between one who says I don't believe any god exists. and one who says No god exists. The first being a statement of opinion based on that person's judgement, and the other being a statement of deffinity, declaring an unprovable belief to be certainty. -- How is this not in accordance with my original post? Moreover, how is the direction you have steered the discussion in any way in accordance with the point of my original post? In case you have forgoten, here is the original post.: -- JDG said that atheism requires faith. I both agree and disagree with that statement. For an atheist to say I don't believe that any sort of god exists, because I have seen no evidence of the existence of any god. Requires no faith at all. They are only stating that they don't believe something because they have seen no evidence of it. That doesn't require faith. For an atheist to say There is no god, and people who believe in any god or gods are just deluding themselves. Requires faith. This statement, while possibly true, cannot be proven, and anyone who makes such a definitive statement on something that cannot be proven does so out of faith in what they believe. So really, it depends on what kind of atheist you are as to whether or not your beliefs are based in faith. -- You are turning this discussion into a justification of religion and avoiding its original intent. How about I turn it back around on you then. Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is the person who says I don't know if any god exists. Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your standards, is delusional. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons. - Douglas Adams ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More Sci-Fi Channel sadness....
--- Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a good news/bad news kind of thing, good that the sci-fi channel has some great ratings, sad at what it was that gave them the great ratings (I am not including Stargate in that statement) SCI FI's Saturday Original Movies delivered a 1.3 average rating this quarter, outperforming non-original Saturday movies by 18 percent. This year, SCI FI became the largest producer of original movies in television, beating out all cable and broadcast networks, the channel announced. 2 things 1) The way TV ratings are gathered will not hit the SciFi demographic, so going by ratings is inapropriate. 2) Even given (1) it was Stargate which did it. I still believe that pulling Farscape was one of their biggest mistakes. Farscape was the best show on TV since Star Trek. The rumor is that they did not want to pay what the Henson co. was requesting. The change in managment that occured the year before droping Farscape is directly responsible. If you agree with these statments it wouldn't hurt to send letters to the channel. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 04:18 am, Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. So it's a bad thing to question authority because it might lead to chaos and anarchy? We'd all better just shut up and do as we're told then. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of sports Re: Why we cast novels
At 01:33 AM 7/9/2003 -0400, you wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 7/8/2003 6:09:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Speaking of sports, anyone else following the Tour de France? If anyone who knows more about cycling than I do (which isn't very much, aside from having read Lance Armstrong's _It's Not About the Bike_ and knowing where his house near Lake Austin is and thinking he's just incredible) and would like to give me analyses off-list (unless there's a general clamor for it to be on-list), I'd be keenly interested. :) I'm following it, but it's way too early to really get into it. Lance Armstrong is currently in 12th place, 19 seconds behind the leader, but this race doesn't really start to mean anything until it moves up into the mountains, which is where Armstrong usually leaves his competition minutes behind, not seconds. They say in American team sports that a playoff series doesn't really begin until the home team loses a game; the last few years, the Tour De France doesn't mean a thing until, if ever, Lance Armstrong is beaten in the mountains. I'm cheering for Lance, but for some reason I have a feeling that this isn't going to be his year. Maybe part of it was I read a brief interview with him after the Prologue (a time trial), in which he said things didn't feel right or something of the sort. I had thought part of his domination in previous years wasn't just due to his strong mountain stages, but also his time trial stages. Maybe another part of it is that the press seems to think he's almost a lock to win it again. I don't like breaking up a post, so everything will be down here. Julia: Maybe you could post something about his marital discord that he and his wife went through this spring, since fixed. Not really, but when that's given as a reason for him not having a great spring, I have to wonder if the reporters are grasping at straws or even if LA himself put that out as a feint. When Jon had his little rant about books into movies and actors who play the roles, I agreed with him and feel the same way about sporting matches. I do go with friends or sit here at home rooting for sporting events, but a lot of people I know actively feel that if they aren't watching, it won't go well for their team. I remind them that if the TV was turned off, the score would still be the same. I'm not changing my view, but I do feel that fans at the game can help their team a little because some players say the fans energize them. TDF analysis: So what does that have to do with the TDF? That there is nothing I can say that will matter a hill of beans. There are maybe seven to twelve riders that have a shot of winning the overall title. If none of them crash, gets a flat, or gets sick; then it will be very close between Jan Ullrich and LA. But anything can happen. Look at Ullrich's crash last year. It's a miracle he didn't die. (If you don't know about it, he went off the road on a descent, jumped off his bike which sailed into the ether.) The biggest difference will be today, the team time trial, my favorite stage. (There's a clip, from years ago, that shows the Motorola team near the end, and even then all the riders, wearing matching everything, even shoes, were pedaling in sequence, all the feet going up and down at the same time.) Each team starts together at five minute intervals, and the time is given when the fifth man crosses the line, for the first five riders. The USPS team knows this and trains for this event. All teams train together, but not all put as much effort into this stage. Looking at the first stage, USPS had a slight advantage over Ullrich's team, but not by much. This will be a day when things get shaken out. Of course there are the mountains. Everyone made assumptions last year at LA looking back at Ullrich and riding away from him. Lance swears he was looking behind Ullrich, that he didn't think he'd drop him and wasn't trying to psyche him out. This year Ullrich is leaner. Did he train hard on the big hills? I'm sure he did. I can add more, about other riders, but have to leave for work. For now: today is important, and overall it's a race between LA and JU. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:05:37AM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote. Your own words say it: ...science is the *best* way we have of understanding and testing reality... (emphasis added) No, I understood what you said, it is just wrong. Is it our only way though? No it is not: We have philosophy; We have *speculation* based on available evidence when scientific evidence is not yet available (which ::gasp:: is the first part of the scientific method); If philosophy disagrees with a repeatable scientific experiment, then philosophy is wrong. Speculation in science is clearly labeled as speculation (hypothesis, not knowledge). One does not say my hypothesis, even though I have no evidence, IS KNOWLEDGE. We even have a legal system in effect that *does not* use scientific method or strictly scientific evidence to find guilt or innocence. If there is not enough evidence presented, convincing beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the person is found NOT GUILTY, but more precisely, what is meant is that there isn't enough evidence to reasonably conclude that guilt exists. And the evidence must not be convincing to a number of different people -- a single eyewitness account without supporting hard evidence or establishment of the trustworthiness of the witness will usually be discounted by the jury (although occasionally it may not be, I would argue that is a mistake and the people are fooling themselves). To complete the metaphor you started, if there is not any evidence for god, then one suspends judgement and does not conclude that god exists. To do otherwise is unreasonable, or delusional. Perhaps part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not agree that unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context. Therefore unscientific belief does not equate to delusional belief. Therefore, unscientific belief DOES equate to delusional belief. Humans are very good at fooling themselves and others. Science is the best way we have to check our knowledge so that we don't fool ourselves. If science disagrees or is unable to be used on some idea, then that idea is really not useful knowledge. If something isn't useful knowledge, but when claims that it IS true (or useful), then it is delusional. The reasonable conclusion in the absence of evidence is to suspend judgement, not to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But all this is arguing semantics and getting away from my original point. I don't think so. You are arguing that there is some reality that cannot be tested by science. I disagree, and that is not just semnatics. No, this is very much getting away from my original point... You know, the one that you snipped at the end that was about atheism, not religion. That being the reason for the subject line. Again, I don't think so. If I've understood what William has said before, then your statements about the thinking of atheists are incorrect. Or at least, I think they do not agree with William's definitions. William, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. True enough. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Why oops? There is no problem there. Based on *your* standard of proof, the only non-delusional person is the person who says I don't know if any god exists. It is not MY standard. Science is everyone's standard. One of the most useful scientific ideas is that for knowledge to be valid, anyone who repeats an experiment, anytime, should obtain the same results as anyone else. That is what makes scientific knowledge high-quality knowledge, not delusion. Anyone who believes in any god or believes in no god, by your standards, is delusional. Yes to the first part, yes or no to the second, depending on what exactly is meant by believes in no god. If someone says, I don't believe in any god because there is no scientific evidence then they are not delusional, they are withholding judgement. If they say, there is no evidence for god so I will base my actions on the non-existence of god then they are not delusional. In the absence of any evidence, a reasonable thing to do is to act as if the phenomenon does not exist. That is not delusional. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:05 am, Michael Harney wrote: Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are for. No evidence for X *is* evidence against X. Cold fusion for example. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:48:18AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote: Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are for. No evidence for X *is* evidence against X. I would agree with the last statement, but not the first. Science does not PROVE negatives, how is it possible to prove that something does not exist? If I try for 100 years to prove the existence of something, and I find no evidence to prove it, can I say I have proved the non-existence? What if I do say it, and then the next experiment I do finds evidence of existence? Then I have falsified my previous statement that I proved non-existence. If you replaced proves with provides support for, then I would agree completely. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:39:50AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Perhaps part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not agree that unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context. I should clarify what delusional means when I use it. Suppose I were to claim that I am constantly surrounded by invisible pink unicorns who tell me what to do and listen to what I say, and sometime even speak to me (I might even say that the unicorns are in control of everything, including life and death). I tell this to a number of psychiatrists. They will all conclude I am delusional, since they cannot themselves find any scientific evidence that such creatures exist, and yet I claim that they do. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More Lies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29766-2003Jul8.html?nav=hptop_ts Former Vermont governor Howard Dean said, The credibility of the U.S. is a precious commodity. We should all be deeply dismayed that our nation was taken to war and our reputation in the world forever tainted by what appears to be the deliberate effort of this administration to mislead the American people, Congress and the United Nations. Forgive me, but I'm not sure of your point in posting this with the subject More Lies - who are you accusing of lying? The Bush Administration or Howard Dean? -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Off on a minor tangent Re: On the topic of atheism.
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass even the scope of such a being. Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the concepts of infinity, eternity, and omni-. I recently saw an argument that Google is God. With wireless technology, Google can be accessed from anywhere, hence is omnipresent. Google gives access to a lot of information, hence is omniscient. Now, I can poke holes in each of these arguments with specific examples -- but the clincher is, I don't see (and the argument didn't claim) that Google is omnipotent. So Google fails the God test, as far as I'm concerned. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion based ethics
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... That gives me the impression that you think we're some kind of science experiment. I don't think that's a logical conclusion. The point is that solving one mystery, such as the origin of species, doesn't eliminate all mystery. Do you think maybe he coded Stalin and Hitler in to see what would happen? How about the AIDS virus - some kind of debugging tool? I apologize for being a bit harsh, but if the creator is so intelligent that he can code an evolutionary species, why are there so many truly horrific bugs? That is certainly a difficult question, but it's not one that science can deal with at all, since it is a why question rather than a how. If we were created as described in the Bible, it is our free will that allows us to do evil things. As for the freedom of viruses and such, that's a much tougher question, as far as I'm concerned, but it has to do with the fallen world metaphor. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 12:13 pm, Erik Reuter wrote: If you replaced proves with provides support for, then I would agree completely. That's all 'scientific proof' means anyway, isn't it? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Why we cast novels
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 01:30 am, Reggie Bautista wrote: And what you've learned about me from reading this is that I followed both Angel and Xena closely enough to know the names of actors who played roles that didn't get them into the opening credits... :-) Some people don't? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Same-sex marriage
William T Goodall wrote: So why are US Conservatives against same-sex marriage? Do they want to force same-sex couples to live in sin? Good joke, though you need a rimshot sound effect. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
John D. Giorgis wrote: In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
TDF
I watched the team time trial of the Tour De France today, and the US Postal Service team (incl. Lance Armstrong) came from way back to not only win but shatter the course, building up speed with every klick, eventually winning by 30 seconds. It was a stirring achievement to watch, because they really rode as a *team,* all 9 riders streaking down the course as one. Very very kewel. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: TDF
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: TDF I watched the team time trial of the Tour De France today, and the US Postal Service team (incl. Lance Armstrong) came from way back to not only win but shatter the course, building up speed with every klick, eventually winning by 30 seconds. It was a stirring achievement to watch, because they really rode as a *team,* all 9 riders streaking down the course as one. Very very kewel. Don't forget we totally beat the French! NFH -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I have concluded no such thing. I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. No, I posted an article from a famous rational and left-leaning thinker who was discussing the origins of religious belief. Personally, I think that if you can only think of negative motivations for my actions, then perhaps you should try expanding your horizons to include new possibilities. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: TDF
Don't forget we totally beat the French! Speaking only for myself, I'm not rooting *against* anyone - I'm rooting *for* Lance Armstrong. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, ... How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth of human nature as mothers loving their children, but being prepared, in the appropriate culture, to attempt infanticide under certain conditions, as was done with Moses. Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know anyone who denies that. It is the same with apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. The issue is not whether whether some people have such experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within a single culture, there is no question. Everyone interprets the experience the same. But people in different cultures interpret apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences differently. Consider numinous experiences. Someone in a strongly Catholic culture most likely will interpret a spiritual experience as supporting Catholicism. Someone from a mixed pagan-Catholic culture, such as Joan D'Arc, interprets experiences to fit. Someone who is atheistic, such as certain old time Buddhists and Confucians, interpret a spiritual experience as confirming their beliefs. If your experience comes fundamentally from one culture, then it makes sense to you to figure that your experience confirms your early-learned beliefs. For you, that judgement is rational. On the other hand, if you have experience several cultures, and take the other cultures seriously (rather than as `foreign' or `crazy' or `misguided'), then your spiritual experience tells you that humans have a characteristic that enables them to come to embrace certain beliefs, but that the particular nature of the beliefs is culturally determined. Note that the beliefs of major religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism, or Christianity, include preferences for actions that are generally considered altruistic and actions that have good long term consequences in spite of creating short term difficulties. When you think in terms of nature rather than nurture, then you note that our paleolithic ancestors survived in bands. And the members of the bands had to cooperate, to help each other, and to act for long term as well as short term survival. Pretty obviously, such bands would survive better if they were made up of people some of whom would have numinous experiences that confirmed the local belief system (if the belief system was helpful). It also goes without saying that numinous experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy that are unfalsifiable in other ways. As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed out, numinous experiences transform the dubious, the arbitrary, and the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural. This is important because members of a paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, members must behave often enough in what everyone thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' manner, else the band will die. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
[We agree for A and B.] c) wheel like, with only the rim having air, the spokes separate from the rim In this configuration, the relevant maximum height is, I think, the ceiling. Perhaps I am wrong -- does someone know? I'm not sure what you are saying. It is fair to take the solution for a cylinder and restrict it to the part of a cylinder that you have. We may have interpreted the configuration differently. I interpreted C as meaning a torus, or donut, or `like the inner tube of a tire'. The short columns must have the same pressure distribution as the long columns in the spokes, since they are in equilibrium with each other at any given height. Now C is nothing but short columns--again nothing changes. Except that this `inner tube' or torus arrangement has no long columns of air within spokes. Let me put this another way: Given (by the specification) that the pressure at the rim is 1 bar and the surface acceleration is 10 m/s^2, Case 1: the spinning tuna can The air column above a point on the rim is 10 km, going to the other side, and it is 5 km to the central spin axis. Case 2: the spinning donut The air column above a point on the rim is 1 km, although the diameter of the torus is 10 km. In each case, what is the air pressure at an altitude of 1 km from the rim? For case 1, based on what Erik wrote, the pressure is 0.988 of the rim pressure. What is the air pressure for case 2? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Actually, you can prove a negative. For example, I can state that there are no large, visible pink elephants in the room with me right now, and you and others can come and look; and if you do, you and the others will not see any large, visible pink elephants. (Of course, you will not be able to see the invisible, tiny pink elephant that I can see in my mind's eye; but I am not talking about him.) I suspect what you are trying to say is that you cannot prove a universal negative, such as there are no pink elephants, not even those that have been painted pink. The latter problem occurs because the universe is bigger than the volume you and others can investigate, so you don't know whether a counter example could occur. But for a constrained space, such as my room, it is possible to determine whether a large, visible entity inhabits it. And for an unconstrained search space, depending on your confidence regarding the `usualness' or `unusualness' of the part you have searched, you can make a statement that may not be absolute, but is strong enough to bet your life on, such as `it is highly unlikely there are any naturally green elephants, although there may be albino elephants that look pinkish because their blood is somewhat visible.' -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:05:37 -0600 Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops. Hi Michael, Just wanted to clarify something: I don't believe that it is possible to prove *this* example of a negative scientifically, but I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that you can prove negatives scientifically. For example: You can prove that a man is not a plank of wood scientifically. No? I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: It is not a comfortable one: the tb's lose the specialness of being Graced by the Gift of Faith, and the aa's simply are unable to 'sense the spiritual,' rather like being unable to distinguish red from green. I don't find that uncomfortable at all. Actually, I find it quite satisfying. Spiritually unspiritual? :-) grin OK, 'uncomfortable' from the standpoint of those who want to be chosen or specially gifted. having sensed it myself -- this reminds me of the discussion about what a race of congenitally blind folk would think of the sanity (or lack thereof) of a person who claimed to be able to identify a far-away object - such as a soaring bird - without hearing, touching or smelling it.] This is silly. There would be many ways to verify what the person claimed other than seeing it. Science frequently (perhaps even usually) deals with things that can't be seen (but can be measured). No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. I really can't comment on the rest of your post, it sounds like typical politically correct nonsense. shakes head exasperatedly and pouts Erik, Erik, Erik -- you can do better than that! No sarcastic parroting of shamelessly etc., or some crack about being half-baked?! *Ree-ally,* I'm going to feel quite hurt that you don't even make the effort to be clever in your put-downs... ;} serious You see no value in dynamic tension, whether it be in society or a counterbalanced elevator? That's what I used yin-yang leavening etc. as shorthand for: forces that work on one level against each other, yet on another level are accomplishing 'work' in a synergistic way. The following is an example of the work that is being done on genetics and human personality traits; in this study, a particular allele that is associated with novelty-seeking and ADHD is found to have been selected _for_, with an age range from 300,000 years ago to a mere 30,000 years ago. In the full article (which is linked via the abstract), evolutionary game theory and even the possibility of an imported allele from Neanderthals is discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=1175dopt=Abstract Associations have been reported of the seven-repeat (7R) allele of the human dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene with both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the personality trait of novelty seeking. This polymorphism occurs in a 48-bp tandem repeat in the coding region of DRD4, with the most common allele containing four repeats (4R) and rarer variants containing 2-11. Here we show by DNA resequencing/haplotyping of 600 DRD4 alleles, representing a worldwide population sample, that the origin of 2R-6R alleles can be explained by simple one-step recombination/mutation events. In contrast, the 7R allele is not simply related to the other common alleles, differing by greater than six recombinations/mutations. Strong linkage disequilibrium was found between the 7R allele and surrounding DRD4 polymorphisms, suggesting that this allele is at least 5-10-fold younger than the common 4R allele. Based on an observed bias toward nonsynonymous amino acid changes, the unusual DNA sequence organization, and the strong linkage disequilibrium surrounding the DRD4 7R allele, we propose that this allele originated as a rare mutational event that nevertheless increased to high frequency in human populations by positive selection. If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? Debbi who thinks that certain *other* exasperating personality traits are also probably genetically influenced... ;} __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I posted formulas, materials properties, an article from a respected scientific journal editor, and links to a number of sites about materials properties, stress/strain curves, etc. to support my statement and to answer a question about whether spider silk would be useful to make a space elevator snippage Hey! That's *not* what I said! On Thurs July 3 I wrote: So, could the structure and properties of dragline silk be helpful in the design of carbon nanotubules for a space elevator? (Of course, I'm guessing you wouldn't want it to be so elastic... Stucture and properties *does not equal* actual. Kindly Use What I ACTUALLY Said, Not What You Want To Pretend That I Said! Maru Dang, I Missed That The First Time Around Maru ROU So There! ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
offlist RE: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missilestohav eglobalreach)
hehehe... Robert, welcome to the Baghdad Bob's of the Brin list club! Your membership was accepted! Dues are waived. Chad (who is top posting out of spite!) -Original Message- From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:35 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach) - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:23 PM Subject: Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach) On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:37:35PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: Pretty much what I said in the last post. The biggest difference between us is that you seem to take all this discussion very very seriously as if your self esteem was at stake. I suppose thats why you seem to want to turn various discussions into one-ups-manship pissing matches. Rob, I said I was done with your part of this thread, but this is rather a different subject and I wanted to let you know why I will be ignoring any of your posts about technical subjects in the future. Why do you think that anyone would care if you don't feel like talking about a particular subject with them? I thought that kind of self-importance only grew near tulips. G Yes, I take technical subjects very seriously. So.elevators and bungee cords are technical subjects. I do not like to see incorrect statements about scientific subjects, nor do I like to see quantitative or well-supported arguments contradicted by ambiguities or arm-waving (they should be contradicted by other quantitative methods or by other well-supported arguments). You, on the other hand, appear to make technical statements off-the-cuff without careful consideration of whether they are correct or relevant. Recall Erik that you ignored completely the existence of the elevator control system and never addressed it. Then you give stats for all steel cable when the cables used by elevators have a manila rope core. So much for your well supported arguments And then you get upset when No, not at all. Its just a mailing list. I hang out with my friends here and talk to them or listen. Its not that big a deal. (Unlike some other events in the past that did have me upset.) Don't read to much into it. As far as I'm concerned we are talking about ..stuff. you get called on them, saying that the discussion is too serious and is being made into a pissing match. Serious discussion is fine by me, I was pointing at serious confrontational tactics and aggressive behavior. I hope thats clearer. Whatever you want to call it, the important thing in a technical discussion is that the correct information is conveyed. Unfortunately, I think that in almost every technical discussion we have had, save one, you have obfuscated the issues rather than clarified them, and I would rather spend my time learning than participating in such useless discussions. I'm sorry you feel that way. I will agree that there is some lack of communication going on or that we are not listening well. But I am trying, and I would hope that you would give me the benefit of the doubt when such matters arise. So, that is why I will be ignoring your posts on technical matters in the future. Now I really am done with your part of this thread. If that's how you feel Erik then I will be OK with that. I sense some sort of antagonism from you that I don't feel myself (towards you) and I wonder if I have done something that has offended you and made you dislike me. It seems to me that you don't have much in the way of respect for me and I wonder why. For all I know everyone here thinks I'm a nutcase, but are too polite to say so. xponent Wondring Aloud Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
William T. Goodall wrote: Yes it has. Apparently you were not paying attention. I replied: Cite, please? William T.G. responded: So (a) you are implying I am a liar and (b) although *you* weren't paying attention you want *me* to look it up for you. I don't think so. No, I'm not implying that you are a liar. If that's how you took it, I'm sorry. I am suggesting that you are mistaken and I'm asking you to support your assertion. I'm not in the habit of doing research for others without being paid for it. It *is* possible that I missed the resolution of this issue, but I find it very unlikely especially since the question is still currently being debated onlist by Michael Harney, among others. Reggie Bautista _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:00:25AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. Yes there is. Those type of birds often call. Or if they have any type of bow and arrow or slingshots, he could shoot it down. And anyway, why not radar? Ultrasonic or RF sensing devices would be extremely valuable to them. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:08:22AM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Kindly Use What I ACTUALLY Said, Not What You Want To Pretend That I Said! Maru Kindly don't misinterpret what I wrote. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
Matt Grimaldi wrote: John D. Giorgis wrote: In practice, I think that many, if not most, agnostics are simply honest atheists. Since true atheism would require a matter of faith - since a negative cannot be proved, many people who might casually be thought of as atheists tend to self-characterize themselves as agnostic. As such, I think a great many of self- described agnostics strongly lean atheist. So why bring up a topic such as religion when you have already concluded that there is nothing you could say and nothing they could say that would put both sides on the same page? I can only think that you would bring it up for some other reason than to discuss it rationally. Because there are people other than agnostics and atheists here who might be interested in a discussion of a religious topic such as the one John posted that caught him some nasty flack from at least one areligious person? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:11:55 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist. So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? The sentence is an assumption and not a proven fact because it is currently impossible to scientifically show that all Dodos, everywhere in the universe are extinct. That's what the 'universal' refers to. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TDF
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't forget we totally beat the French! Speaking only for myself, I'm not rooting *against* anyone - I'm rooting *for* Lance Armstrong. So'm I. He's the only reason I got interested in TDF in the first place. For that, and geographical reasons, I'll be rooting *for* him in any TDF he's in. (Doesn't hurt that he helps out with an annual bike race around here to help raise money for cancer research, either.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
TIA:CTS: The Pentagon's Plan for Tracking Everything That Moves
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0328/shachtman.php The Pentagon's Plan for Tracking Everything That Moves Big Brother Gets a Brain by Noah Shachtman July 9 - 15, 2003 The cameras are already in place. The computer code is being developed at a dozen or more major companies and universities. And the trial runs have already been planned. Everything is set for a new Pentagon program to become perhaps the federal government's widest reaching, most invasive mechanism yet for keeping us all under watch. Not in the far-off, dystopian future. But here, and soon. The military is scheduled to issue contracts for Combat Zones That See, or CTS, as early as September. The first demonstration should take place before next summer, according to a spokesperson. Approach a checkpoint at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, during the test and CTS will spot you. Turn the wheel on this sprawling, 8,656-acre army encampment, and CTS will record your action. Your face and license plate will likely be matched to those on terrorist watch lists. Make a move considered suspicious, and CTS will instantly report you to the authorities. Fort Belvoir is only the beginning for CTS. Its architects at the Pentagon say it will help protect our troops in cities like Baghdad, where for the past few weeks fleeting attackers have been picking off American fighters in ones and twos. But defense experts believe the surveillance effort has a second, more sinister, purpose: to keep entire cities under an omnipresent, unblinking eye. This isn't some science fiction nightmare. Far from it. CTS depends on parts you could get, in a pinch, at Kmart. There's almost a 100 percent chance that it will work, said Jim Lewis, who heads the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, because it's just connecting things that already exist. As currently configured, the old-line cameras speckled throughout every major city aren't that much of a privacy concern. Yes, there are lenses everywhereseveral thousand just in Manhattan. But they see so much, it's almost impossible for snoops to sift through all the footage and find what's important. CTS would coordinate the cameras, gathering their views in a single information storehouse. The goal, according to a recent Pentagon presentation to defense contractors, is to track everything that moves. This gives the U.S. government capabilities Big Brother only pretended to have, said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a defense think tank. Before, we said Big Brother's watching. But he really wasn't, because there was too much to watch. CTS could help soldiers spot dangers as they navigate perilous urban areas, Pentagon researchers insist. That's not how defense analysts like Pike see it. The program seems to have more to do with domestic surveillance than a foreign battlefield, he said, and more to do with the Department of Homeland Security than the Department of Defense. Right now, this may be a military program, added Lewis. But when it gets up and running, there's going to be a huge temptation to apply it to policing at hometo keep tabs on ordinary citizens, whether or not they've done something wrong. -- -- Traditionally, the authorities have collected information only on people who might be connected to a crime. If there was a murder in the East Village, the cops didn't bring in all of St. Mark's Place; they interrogated only the people who might have information about the killer. Even the most extreme abuses of law enforcement powerlike J. Edgar Hoover's domestic spying on political activistshomed in on very specific individuals, or groups, that he imagined as threats to the state. He didn't put the whole state under watch. September 11 changed that. Now, the idea is to find out as much as possible about as many people as possible. After all, the logic goes, the country can't afford to sit back and wait to be attacked. Almost anyone could play a part in a terrorist plot. So the government has to keep tabs on almost everyone. CTS, a $12 million, three-year program, is emerging as a potential centerpiece of that initiative. Before, it was 'let's catch the bad guys and bring them to trial after stuff happens,' Lewis said. Now it's 'let's look for patterns and stop [an attack] before it happens.' That's why Attorney General John Ashcroft pushed for a program to turn a million civilians into citizen-spies, snooping on their neighbors. That's why the USA Patriot Act now allows for wiretaps without warrants. And it's why the Pentagon has begun researching an array of high-tech tools to pry into average people's lives. CTS is the brainchild of DARPA, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. That's the group of minds behind the notoriously invasive Total (sorry, Terrorism) Information Awareness über-database. TIA's backers say the project
Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] Of course, here I am presupposing that there IS something to be sensed, ... How can this be a presupposition? It as much truth of human nature as mothers loving their children, but being prepared, in the appropriate culture, to attempt infanticide under certain conditions, as was done with Moses. I was trying to write from the 'neutral agnostic' position, while acknowledging that I in fact am a person who has had numinous experiences. But I cannot prove that scientifically to someone who has not experienced such a moment. It is of course possible that our technology will someday advance to the point of being able to measure some of these 'events.' Numinous experiences do occur. I don't know anyone who denies that. It is the same with apparitions and stigmata. They occur, too. Yet some people will state that such experiences are delusional, or the products of a weak mind; I was trying to explain how it could be possible for both someone who has, and someone who has not, lived through such moments to be accurate in their interpretation of such events. The issue is not whether whether some people have such experiences, but how they are interpreted. Within a single culture, there is no question. Everyone interprets the experience the same. But people in different cultures interpret apparitions, stigmata, and numinous experiences differently. Yes; but some people do not (cannot?) have these experiences at all, so they think of others - or themselves - as 'delusional' or 'defective.' Consider numinous experiences. snip On the other hand, if you have experience several cultures, and take the other cultures seriously (rather than as `foreign' or `crazy' or `misguided'), then your spiritual experience tells you that humans have a characteristic that enables them to come to embrace certain beliefs, but that the particular nature of the beliefs is culturally determined. Note that the beliefs of major religions such as Confucianism, Hinduism, or Christianity, include preferences for actions that are generally considered altruistic and actions that have good long term consequences in spite of creating short term difficulties. When you think in terms of nature rather than nurture, then you note that our paleolithic ancestors survived in bands. And the members of the bands had to cooperate, to help each other, and to act for long term as well as short term survival. Pretty obviously, such bands would survive better if they were made up of people some of whom would have numinous experiences that confirmed the local belief system (if the belief system was helpful). Agreed. It also goes without saying that numinous experiences can and do confirm statements of liturgy that are unfalsifiable in other ways. But for those who cannot believe in such experiences, there is no scientific proof to replace the faith of the believer/experiencer. As the late anthropologist, Roy Rappaport, pointed out, numinous experiences transform the dubious, the arbitrary, and the conventional into the correct, the necessary, and the natural. This is important because members of a paleolithic band must cooperate, which is to say, members must behave often enough in what everyone thinks of as a `correct, necessary, and natural' manner, else the band will die. Yes, spirituality must have been a 'centripetal' force in such bands, although in huge masses as we have grown into now, it has become a force that too often flings apart... Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 06:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? It means you haven't read The Ugly Chickens. ;) I have! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TDF
I spent way too much time replying this morning. Damn you Brin-L! But now at work I can waste as much time as I want. If other's did reply to you off list Julia, could I ask those others to send their opinions to me? Just want to read what others are thinking. I don't want to say I'm a fanatic, but I do tape every TDF from OLN. I got a satellite dish just to get OLN. (Well, the second reason. Comcast, the local cable, has raised the fees the full amount they can each year for the last five years. So this was my FU to them.) I also watch all the other bike races, as well as skiing on OLN. I've gotten into arguments over the TDF, and have not been wrong on the facts. (Just little arguments. At a bike event there was a DJ giving away prizes asking trivia questions. One question was: how many riders on each team in the TDF? A teenaged girl standing next to me asked her dad what the answer was, he said eleven riders. I didn't know these people, but I turned and said, No, it's nine riders. Twenty one teams, nine riders, 189 riders total. (last year). The girl looked at me, then her dad, then ran up to the DJ and said nine riders. She got a pair of socks.) Last year I listened to the live French audio stream coverage of the race while at work. As long as you know the names, everything can be figured out. This year I can't get anything to work, so I just read the text updates. Tom Beck: Who says a playoff series doesn't begin until the home team loses? I've never heard that. Is it in pro basketball, which isn't a real sport? Do they mean the team with the home team advantage, or the home team for each game? I suspect they mean the first but it's still a silly statement. Not trying to pick a fight. I agree with you, LA hasn't lost time on any mountain stages in the last few years. But except for Heras, his team has not helped as much as they should have in the mountains. He doesn't have Hamilton anymore, he lost Andreau last year (who wasn't much of a climber). It will be noticeable if his pick-ups help more this year. Does Ullrich have as good a team around him? Bryon: What press seems to think he'll win, this year? Do you mean non-cycling reporters? I thought last year everyone was fawning over him, with his win in the Swiss race, his standing as the number one cyclist in the world. I read Velo news which is a lot less biased then Bicycling magazine. They aren't cutting at him like they did two years ago, but not as supportive as last year. He has only won two prologues, right, last year and the year before that? While they are important, being the last starter and going over cobblestones would not be fun. He said he didn't start as hard as he liked. Think of it: they ride for 3-4 hours, then spin on a trainer for twenty minutes to get their heartrate way up, THEN they jump up to the ramp for a seven and a half minute race. That's why I like the TDF. You can win the whole thing without winning a single stage. But also one stupid mistake can cost you a 21 day race. Last year for the USPS a flat caused five of them to wreck, they finished second with only six riders. This year they win the team time trial with all nine. Kevin T. - VRWC Off on my own bike. I hope the rain holds off. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip It *is* possible that I missed the resolution of this issue, but I find it very unlikely especially since the question is still currently being debated onlist by Michael Harney, among others. No, no resolution, although it's been stated before that there was one. grin I declare that there is in fact an Invisible (but not pink) Unicorn Who Watches Over All, and I can prove it because I wrote a hymn for It! There! Issue resolved! She's Joking, Isn't She? Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin-L Chat Reminder
This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time, so it's just starting. There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help getting there: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. Yes there is. Those type of birds often call. No, they don't: http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/george.shtml In common with all New World (American) vultures, the Andean Condor is, to all intents and purposes, silent. It does utter wheezes, suppressed coughs and grunts, but has no real voice. Technically, the syrinx, which is the organ which produces birds' voices, and equates to our larynx, is absent from all seven species of New World vultures. Or if they have any type of bow and arrow or slingshots, he could shoot it down. Um, how could a blind person shoot a silent moving target, especially so high up? And anyway, why not radar? Ultrasonic or RF sensing devices would be extremely valuable to them. Because dogonnit, it's my scenario, and if I specify primitive blind folks without advanced technology like radar, that's the scenario! :D (But I confess that I read a story long, long ago that had an adventurer stumbling across a valley of blind people with only simple technology; no recall of the author or title, but I do remember that they considered the sightless sockets to make pleasing depressions in the face, and offered to remove the adventurer's 'troubling deformities'...) But of course once (if) they develop such technology, they _would_ be able to verify that a huge creature soars hundreds of feet overhead and travels hundreds of miles without touching the ground...And isn't it quite likely that we will continue to discover new things that we had *no idea* existed before, as our technology advances? Consider dark matter and so-called dark energy -- these were concepts once un-thought of, then ridiculed, and now taken quite seriously, worthy of study. Hey, they track some condors utilizing satellites: http://www.clemetzoo.com/rttw/condor/migintro.htm Debbi Touch The Sky Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:00 pm, Deborah Harrell wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? So there might be a cure for it? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Kindly Use What I ACTUALLY Said, Not What You Want To Pretend That I Said! Maru Kindly don't misinterpret what I wrote. Slightly better retort. ;) But I *didn't* misinterpret what you wrote, which was: and to answer a question about whether spider silk would be useful to make a space elevator That *wasn't* my question; this was: So, could the structure and properties of dragline silk be helpful in the design of carbon nanotubules for a space elevator? GSV Clarification __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? So there might be a cure for it? snorts rolls eyes You managed to *completely* overlook my point - that novelty-seeking is in fact one of the traits that makes us so successful as a species, and is only a problem when taken to extemes...so too for spirituality. IMN-S-HO, naturally. ;) Although cockroaches are terribly successful from a biological standpoint, I don't think they are curious or spiritual...and think what would happen if they were! shudders as only one who has lived in the South (or the jungle/rainforest), with multiple types of pesticide-adapted cockroaches, can possibly understand Personally Not A Thrill-Seeker, Except For Riding Arabians* Maru *This would make Quarter Horse owners LOL, but is probably incomprehensible to almost everyone else. :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Update
Talk about rip-off season. Orson Scott Card wrote the story for this video game, for which he is also writing a novelization. Not a direct duplicate of Uplift, but close ... even the title: In Advent Rising, a common legend pervades the galaxy - that of a powerful, ancient race that will one day unite the universe. Millions of cultures from vastly distant worlds revere and hallow these mythological beings. http://www.adventtrilogy.com/ http://www.glyphx.com/ Thanks Trevor. I'd have thought Card would try to be more circumspect. Ah well. For someone who preaches about honor a lot, he has numerous blind spots... ... as do we all. It's a big world. His successes don't threaten me. Neither does his sourpuss hostility. I wish him well and hope he succeeds big time. db ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TDF
Tom Beck: Who says a playoff series doesn't begin until the home team loses? I've never heard that. Is it in pro basketball, which isn't a real sport? Do they mean the team with the home team advantage, or the home team for each game? I suspect they mean the first but it's still a silly statement. Not trying to pick a fight. What they mean is the team that has the 4 games at home. Primarily in the NBA, also in the NHL, to a lesser extent in MLB. Because, in the NBA, the home team has a huge advantage, if each team were to win its home games, the team with the 4 home games would win the championship. I don't know why you say it's silly; it's no sillier than anything else one hears on sports-talk radio (which I know perfectly well is a source of some very silly things indeed). My only point was that Armstrong is so dominant in the mountain stages, that's where this race really begins, at least over the last few years. It was an analogy, which I realize is at best of limited utility, but all I wanted to do was point out that Armstrong has been more of a force in the mountain stages than on flatter ground. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Update
The full paragraph from the press release reads: In Advent Rising, a common legend pervades the galaxy - that of a powerful, ancient race that will one day unite the universe. Millions of cultures from vastly distant worlds revere and hallow these mythological beings known as humans. One race, the Seekers, know humans actually exist and are threatened by their potential power. Under the guise of benevolent explorers, the Seekers travel throughout the galaxy in a desperate attempt to eradicate any human society they unearth. It doesn't seem like that really has much to do with Uplift, unless Dr. Brin is revealing the secret identity of the Progenitors to us unintentionally... :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Um, how could a blind person shoot a silent moving target, especially so high up? Not the blind person, silly. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:38:07PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: That *wasn't* my question; Yes, it was. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: That *wasn't* my question; Yes, it was. sigh I've already re-posted my original question from my original post, and I asked about the _structure_ as a basis for designing a cable of _carbon nanotubules_ -- although the idea of a composite seems to have merit. Is This The 'Wear 'em Down By Repetition' Technique Maru? __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: I've already re-posted my original question from my original post, and I asked about the _structure_ as a basis for designing a cable of _carbon nanotubules_ -- although the idea of a composite seems to have merit. No you didn't. And stop misinterpreting me. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missiles tohaveglobalreach)
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I've already re-posted my original question from my original post, and I asked about the _structure_ as a basis for designing a cable of _carbon nanotubules_ -- although the idea of a composite seems to have merit. No you didn't. And stop misinterpreting me. shrugs Whatever, Erik. This isn't fun anymore, so I'm off this thread. __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:01:33 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 08:18 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? The sentence is an assumption and not a proven fact because it is currently impossible to scientifically show that all Dodos, everywhere in the universe are extinct. That's what the 'universal' refers to. It isn't usually stated in a context that would lead one to assume that it was intended to be read as an assumption rather than a statement of fact. So? Don't you have a sig quote that says something to the effect of even if a million people believe something is right when it's wrong they are still wrong? In science and in language accuracy is important. It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the result of faith and not scientific principle. So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. Only agnostics do not. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. So we should take that on faith then? :) Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:27 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100 On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote: ---Original Message--- From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean? What does the coelacanth is extinct mean? And what did it mean 100 years ago? Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point. Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then god(s) don't exist. So we should take that on faith then? No, it's the best available information, no faith required. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:23:55PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. No, I don't think that is true for any but the most extreme atheists. Saying that for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all practical purposes, god does not exist seems much closer to a scientific statement than a faith statement. Only saying, I am absolutely certain that no (well-hidden) god exists anywhere in the universe requires faith. But I don't see many atheists making such a statement. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:23 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote: It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the result of faith and not scientific principle. So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on faith to support their conclusions. Only agnostics do not. It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and the world is a big place... There is no evidence at all that god(s) exist or ever did. So why be agnostic about that and not woolly mammoths? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:31:40PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: No, they don't: http://www.hawk-conservancy.org/priors/george.shtml In common with all New World (American) vultures, the Andean Condor is, to all intents and purposes, silent. It does utter wheezes, suppressed coughs and grunts, but has no real voice. Are your villagers retarded too? Why not use a calling bird? Or better yet, why not have someone scrape something into a piece of wood and hold it up and let the person read it at a distance? Or about a million other ways? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Debbi wrote: If novelty-seeking is a genetic trait that has become widespread because of some advantages that it confers (I can think of many, from utilizing new food sources to finding new places to live -- as well as little problems from being _overly_ curious, like fatal poisonings and discovering that cave lions *do not* like to share their dens!), is it so hard to consider that spirituality might likewise be a genetic trait? William T. Goodall replied: So there might be a cure for it? Only in the sense that there might be a cure for having blue eyes or only brown hair. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
William T. Goodall wrote: It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and the world is a big place... There is no evidence at all that god(s) exist or ever did. So why be agnostic about that and not woolly mammoths? As was discussed in another branch of this thread, many people *do* feel they have evidence of the divine, in the form of numinous experiences and apparitions and what some people see as a guiding hand in their life, etc. It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Robert J. Chassell wrote: We may have interpreted the configuration differently. I interpreted C as meaning a torus, or donut, or `like the inner tube of a tire'. Agreed. The short columns must have the same pressure distribution as the long columns in the spokes, since they are in equilibrium with each other at any given height. Now C is nothing but short columns--again nothing changes. Except that this `inner tube' or torus arrangement has no long columns of air within spokes. Yes, but how do the short columns know that the long columns aren't there? It doesn't matter what the other columns are! Let me put this another way: Given (by the specification) that the pressure at the rim is 1 bar and the surface acceleration is 10 m/s^2, Case 1: the spinning tuna can The air column above a point on the rim is 10 km, going to the other side, and it is 5 km to the central spin axis. Case 2: the spinning donut The air column above a point on the rim is 1 km, although the diameter of the torus is 10 km. In each case, what is the air pressure at an altitude of 1 km from the rim? For case 1, based on what Erik wrote, the pressure is 0.988 of the rim pressure. What is the air pressure for case 2? The same as in case 1. (Although a pressure of .988 bar seems a bit high--a kilometer of height makes a much larger pressure difference on Earth.) I'll try one last time. You are free to add all the partitions between parts of the habitat you want, and it won't affect the pressure. So go from Case 1 to Case 2 by adding a ceiling partition at 1 km height. It makes no difference! Or look at Erik's argument again. It makes no reference to the height of air columns at all. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
more on printing organs
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns3916 Nanotechnology may create new organs 18:30 08 July 03 NewScientist.com news service Scientists have built a minute, functioning vascular system - the branching network of blood vessels which supply nutrients and oxygen to tissues - in a significant step towards building whole organs. Conventional tissue engineering methods have successfully grown structural tissues such as skin and cartilage in the lab. But not being able to create the supporting vascular system has proved a major stumbling block preventing scientists from creating large functioning organs such as liver or kidneys. Now, researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Medical School have used computers to design branching networks of venous and arterial capillaries, which start at three millimetres wide and reach a fineness of just 10 microns. We used living vessels as a guide to model factors such as the angle and size ratio between branching vessels. But we optimised our design to improve it, said lead researcher Mohammad Kaazempur-Mofrad, from MIT¹s department of mechanical engineering and division of biological engineering. Pig or rabbit The networks were etched on to 15 centimetre-wide silicon wafers and the paths were then used as a mould to set a layer of biodegradable polymer. Two of these were then sealed together with a microporous membrane sandwiched between them, producing a mini artificial vascular system. Endothelial cells - which are flat cells lining the walls of blood vessels in a single layer - were injected into the network on one side of the membrane and either liver or kidney cells were injected on the other side. The endothelial cells coated the inside of the polymer nanotubes. These nanotubes biodegraded to leave a living shell of vessels similar to a natural vascular network. This method would provide an efficient means of supplying the liver or kidney cells with enough oxygen and nutrients to survive. The one-layer systems of kidney and liver cells were successfully implanted into rats for two weeks - 95 per cent of the cells survived. The next step is to work on bigger animals, such as a pig or rabbit, using more layers, Kaazempur-Mofrad told New Scientist. Eventually, we want to be able to replace whole organs with several layers of these constructs. The critical mass for liver is one-third, probably 30 to 50 stacked layers. So in the next 10-15 years, we will hopefully have reached a point where we can do this procedure clinically in human patients, Kaazempur-Mofrad added. The research was presented at the American Society for Microbiology Conference on Bio-, Micro-, and Nanosystems, in New York City on Tuesday. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of sports Re: Why we cast novels
Bryon Daly wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW, I've been watching the rerun of TDF coverate on OLM from 7:30 to 10 in the evening, but I won't be able to tonight. If anyone who is following the Tour wants to privately shoot me info on how Lance's team does today, or tell me where to go to get that info this afternoon, that would be wonderful. It was nice of Tom yesterday to tell me Lance's overall ranking at the end of the day yesterday, since they didn't list that on the OLN coverage I saw, and I'm not sure the paper has arrived yet. (The Austin paper will tell all anyone wants to know about LA's performance -- the *next* morning.) Julia, the ESPN web site has some coverage of the TdF here: http://espn.go.com/oly/tdf2003/index.html It's not extensive, but you can get all the stage results and standings there, along with a smattering of articles. Another site that may be suitable is: http://www.sbs.com.au/tdf/ Obviously somewhat Aussie slanted (though justifiedly so for the first few days!), but is always good for international coverage. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missilestohaveglobalreach)
Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I've already re-posted my original question from my original post, and I asked about the _structure_ as a basis for designing a cable of _carbon nanotubules_ -- although the idea of a composite seems to have merit. No you didn't. And stop misinterpreting me. shrugs Whatever, Erik. This isn't fun anymore, so I'm off this thread. And once again, we have a winner! Congratulations! Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Update
Gautam Mukunda wrote: The full paragraph from the press release reads: In Advent Rising, a common legend pervades the galaxy - that of a powerful, ancient race that will one day unite the universe. Ancient precursors aren't exactly a new idea in SF. Sounds more like a ripoff of Star Control II/SC III anyway. Of course, since Star Control II was a *GREAT* game, at least they're borrowing from the best. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Aliens? was Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Debbi wrote- No, it isn't - unless the blind folks' technology is advanced enough to detect a soaring condor (I admit I was thinking 'plain villagers' in my scenario, so no radar), there is no way for them to verify that a creature with a 10+ foot wingspan is passing hundreds of feet above their heads. The bird analogy is pretty close to a thought I had today. Does it change anyone's perspective recalling that as many people believe in aliens/intelligent life (or some such), as believe in religion? I forgot about that somewhat recent news blip for some reason. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
test
Ping? __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:37 -0700 (PDT) --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: snip Personally Not A Thrill-Seeker, Except For Riding Arabians* Maru *This would make Quarter Horse owners LOL, but is probably incomprehensible to almost everyone else. :) Arabians are harder to tame, no? Jon Rides English and Western and Read the Black Stallion Books as a Kid Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of sports Re: Why we cast novels
Ray Ludenia wrote: Bryon Daly wrote: Julia, the ESPN web site has some coverage of the TdF here: http://espn.go.com/oly/tdf2003/index.html It's not extensive, but you can get all the stage results and standings there, along with a smattering of articles. Another site that may be suitable is: http://www.sbs.com.au/tdf/ Obviously somewhat Aussie slanted (though justifiedly so for the first few days!), but is always good for international coverage. Both good. Thanks, guys. (And I'm not happy about how far the Aussies seem to have fallen, at least some of them. I hope they can catch up some. I was enjoying watching them in the earlier stages.) Julia who thought she was done for awhile after the NBA championship ended, but was wrong Someone's going to be a sports widower outside of NFL football season. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
Deborah Harrell wrote: Ping? Pong. I'm waiting to hear from Nick as to just what happened there. Julia who was out for over 4 hours and missed most of the interruption (and who had a good time this evening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Joke's on Whom? (was: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally Not A Thrill-Seeker, Except For Riding Arabians* Maru *This would make Quarter Horse owners LOL, but is probably incomprehensible to almost everyone else. :) Arabians are harder to tame, no? Mmm, more like harder to *convince* that they ought to listen to you, the rider/handler, because as Arabians they are naturally the smartest of horses, and so know best, being the oldest breed and all! (speaking from their perspective) But the joke to QH riders means that they don't have to contend with the craziness of Arabians, as they see it (QHs are generally very calm and move quietly unless they are asked for a burst of speed, which they can give in just a few strides) -- to Arab riders, the spirit, humor, and occasional plain sassiness of the Arabian are what make riding fun, so the joke is on those pokey slouch-in-the-saddles! A true cowboy wants a quiet horse that won't spook the silly cows, is obedient, and makes no fuss. While there are ranches that breed and use Arabs for handling cows, the origin of the breed as a warhorse 'set' their fiery tempers and quickness-to-leap-with-minimal-provocation. My friend's QH just plods along when we put on sleigh bells at Christmas time -- Darby (an Arab) deliberately gives an extra 'pop' to his shoulders when trotting with bells, and arches his neck 'extra-proud' without any urging from me whatsoever. Baron, his brother 'the joker,' deliberately turns over any containers in reach, including the bucket of brushes and the wheelbarrow of manure, and snatches hats off heads then waves them about -- I daresay the cows would not be amused! :) Debbi who will shut up now lest she go on and on and on... ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Lifesize Han in carbonite in Lego... 10,000 bricks and the insanity...
Subject: Lifesize Han in carbonite in Lego10,000 bricks and the insanity. Date:Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:38:32 -0500 From:Bill Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] you...you've gotta see this http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=48970 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
