Re: Scouted: Vinyl Chloride Eater
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Apparently we've inadvertantly helped develop a bacterium that needs our waste to live: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/ap/20030703/ap_on_sc/toxic_feeder_5 ...Vinyl chloride is one of the most common and hazardous industrial chemicals. It can linger in the soil for hundreds of years and is present at about a third of the toxic Superfund sites listed by the Environmental Protection Agency. It usually accumulates as a deteriorated form of more complex compounds found in dry cleaning fluid and metal cleansers. snip ...These organisms can only grow when the contaminants are present, he said. When the material is gone, their numbers decline because they don't have any food. So really it's a perfect system. Didn't I read that novel 30 years ago? http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.seymour1/ukbookguide/Series/Doomwatch/mutant59.html grin Yep, I read that one too! ...Also about 30 years ago... I wonder if the Good Doctor read it also, to the Gubru's chagrin? ;) Well, Saliva IS An Effective Emergency Eyeglasses Cleaner 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: SC2 music (was Re: Update)
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bryon Daly wrote: I actually have the majority of the SC2 music in .mod format, which is actually their original format. Anyway, I have a zip file with 34 .mods from SC2 - it's about 1.9MB. So if your interested, I can email the file to you (and anyone else who's interested). Also, Winamp plays the .mods fine, but the modplayer I have (Mod4Win) might be of some interest since it provides more info about the music. The .zip for that is 850 KB so I can email that to anyone interested as well. I'd be interested in both, but after I get back from vacation. I have to clear out a little space at this address to be able to receive them, and I'll probably be best off getting one file, d/ling and deleting, then getting the other. I'll e-mail you after I get back, OK? Okeydoke! -bryon _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail 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
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:29:26PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: but since R_e = 6370km, and h = 1km, (1 + h / R_e) = 1 is an excellent approximation so the formula becomes P/P0 = exp[ -( h / R_e )( R_e m g / k / T ) ] = exp[ -739 ( h / R_e )] I can't find the post where you derived the potential energy at a height h above the rim of a habitat of radius R. So here's mine, assuming artificial gravity on the rim of 1 g. Ah, now we're getting somewhere (I like equations)! You were right all along, but it wasn't being communicated to me without equations. Your physical intuition is superb, but I'm afraid it doesn't make for very good communication. The radius from the axis is R-h, and centrifical force goes as radius, so the force must be (mg/R)*(R-h). We choose the zero of potential energy to be when h = 0, just as in your formula for the Earth. We get this potential U by integrating the force, so we have: U = Integral(0,h) of (mg/R)*(R-t) dt = (mg/R)*[Rt - t^2/2] Evaluate(0,h) = (mg/R)*[Rh - h^2/2] = mgh*[1 - (h/2R)] Thank you! In my previous post, I only had the second term in the potential. I'm not sure how I dropped the first one, but your equation is correct as far as I can tell. I guess I should type up my math steps next time something like this comes up. That way we won't get caught in a loop with me making math mistakes and you saying the result doesn't make sense to you but you don't want to work out the math. By the way, how did you know, before working out the equation, that the potential function of the spinning habitat had to be approximately the same as that due to gravity? Did you intuit that from a principle of the equivalence of a gravitational field with that of a centrifugal force field in a rotating frame? That seems a key insight here. If I had realized that, I would have recognized my mistake a lot sooner. Anyway, since the internal chemical potential of an ideal gas is u_i = k T ln[ n / nq ] then the total chemical potential, which must be independent of height in equilibrium, is the sum of u_i and the potential energy u = k T ln[ n[h] / nq ] + m g h ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) = k T ln[ n[0] / nq ] where the right hand side is obtained by substituting h=0. Then k T ln[ n[h] / n[0] ] = - m g h ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) n[h] / n[0] = Exp[ - m g h ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) / k / T ] So, assuming I don't make another math mistake, the formula for pressure ratio is the same as that for n[h] / n[0] which can be written P/P0 = exp[ - ( h / R ) ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) ( m g R / k / T ) ] = exp[ - h m g / ( k T ) ] exp[ + 0.5 h^2 m g / ( k T R ) ] If R=5km, m=4.85e-26, g=9.8, k=1.381e-23, T=300, and we note that h must be in km, then P/P0 = exp[ -0.115 h ] exp[ +1.15e-2 h^2 ] , h in km, R=5km, h = R For Rama, with R=8km, P/P0 = exp[ -0.115 h ] exp[ +7.17e-3 h^2 ] , h in km, R=8km, h = R For the earth, the equivalent formula is quite similar (as David predicted) P/P0 = exp[ -0.115 h ] exp[ +1.81e-5 h^2] , h in km, h/6370 is small As a check, one of my textbooks gives a curve fit of actual Earth pressure gradient data to exp[ -h / hc ] and they find hc=8.5km. Since 1/.115 = 8.7km, it seems this formula is reasonable. At h=1km, the pressures in the 5km habitat, Rama, and Earth are within 1% of each other. However, note that for the R=5km habitat, the second exponential factor is equal to 1.33 at the habitat center where h=5km. In contrast, on the earth when h=5km, the second exponential factor is only 1.0005. So the smaller radius of the habitat does come into play as one approaches the center of the habitat. This is what I was referring to previously. Apparently it holds true despite the mistaken formula that first suggested it to me. Here is a table of the second exponential factor --- Non-Linear Correction Factor h(km) 5km habitat 8km Rama 6370km Earth === 11.0116 1.0072 1. 21.0471 1.0291 1.0001 31.1090 1.0667 1.0002 41.2020 1.1216 1.0003 51.3331 1.1963 1.0005 --- Basically, since gravity or centrifugal force gets weaker as h increases, the pressure needs a correction factor as shown above. This factor becomes significant when h/R grows, but is insignificant in Earth's atmosphere since the atmosphere is gone by the time h/R becomes significant. So, the only difference between the three formulas is the non-linear-potential correction factor which is negligible for small h/R, but becomes significant when h/R increases, which happens for a small habitat but is insignificant for the Earth. Apparently, my willingness to work through the math, and David's physical reasoning to catch my mistakes seem to make a good team! Sorry for the mistake, R.C., I guess you'll
Re: Reading lists.
For the Harry Potter books, I like the UK cover art better, at least judging from Order Of The Phoenix. And I regret the dumbing down of the book 1 title in the US by changing Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone. Me too. I have purchased all 5 books from amazon.co.uk because I preferred the cover art on the Bloomsbury editions. The binding on some wasn't all that good (esp. Goblet of Fire), but Order of the Phoenix apppears to be much better manufactured. Although it is true that sorceror's stone means absolutely nothing, esp. if you know anything at all about alchemy, I wonder how many young readers in the UK got the association either until it was explained in the book? -- 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
SCOUTED: Marvel scraps plan for comic book Princess Di
Marvel scraps plan for comic book Princess Di Storyline was to be called 'Di Another Day' NEW YORK (Reuters) --A U.S. comic book publisher has decided to let Princess Diana rest in peace, dropping plans to reincarnate her as a mutant comic superhero this fall, the company said Thursday. Marvel Enterprises Inc. said in a statement that upon reflection it will remove Diana and all references to the royal family in its upcoming X-Statix monthly comics. The about-face follows a recent announcement by Marvel Comics that it planned to introduce Diana as one of a team of super-powered mutants in a five-series storyline called Di Another Day. Company spokespeople were not immediately available to elaborate on the decision. Diana was to have been a character in a satirical look at fame and pop culture, Marvel said earlier this week. Buckingham Palace called the idea utterly appalling and a cheap attempt to cash in on Diana's fame and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death. Copyright 2003 Reuters. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/07/11/diana.reut/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SCOUTED: Fraternal Twins Share a Placenta
Twin mystery confounds doctors First case of fraternal twins sharing a placenta documented (AP) --Contradicting nearly all the medical textbooks, doctors have proven for the first time that fraternal, or nonidentical, twins can share a placenta. Until now, doctors believed that only identical twins -- which come from a single, split embryo -- can share a placenta, the mass of tissue inside the uterus that delivers nourishment to the fetus via the umbilical cord. In Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, doctors at the University of Washington in Seattle reported that a 48-year-old woman gave birth about two years ago to male and female twins nourished by the same placenta. Each baby had his or her own umbilical cord and amniotic sac. The babies were conceived via test tube fertilization with another woman's eggs. Experts said the procedure, in which eggs and sperm are mixed in a dish and the fertilized eggs are inserted in the woman's uterus, could have somehow caused the outcome. I think there are other cases out there that were missed, said lead author Dr. Vivienne L. Souter. But I think it's very rare. Fraternal twins occur when two sperm fertilize two eggs at the same time; they are relatively common with test tube babies because multiple embryos are put in the uterus to increase the chances of producing a baby. In this case, the babies were of the opposite sex, so they could not be identical twins. But the woman's doctors were puzzled over how there could be only one placenta. Initial blood tests added to the confusion, indicating a 99.9 percent likelihood the twins were identical. Exception to the rule Partly because of concerns the girl might have a rare genetic abnormality that can cause sterility, the case was referred to experts at the university, where Souter was then a fellow in medical genetics. The parents were really anxious about the babies, Souter said. We examined them. They looked like a completely normal boy, a completely normal girl. I initially thought, 'This doesn't add up.' Souter consulted with top specialists, including geneticists from Australia's twin registry, and they solved the mystery by doing sophisticated DNA testing of skin from each baby to prove the twins were not identical. Their blood was similar because they shared blood circulation in the womb. Because these things get so deeply rooted in medicine, it's very difficult to convince people that there's an exception to the rule, said Souter, who is on medical leave caring for her 3-month-old fraternal twins. Dr. Laura Riley, chairman of the obstetrics practice committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said this is the first such case she knows of to be so convincingly documented. A 1970 journal report claimed this had happened, but was disregarded because of limited data. Riley said whether there is one placenta or two is important because if twins share blood circulation, one can receive more of the blood, and therefore more of the nutrients and oxygen. This is dangerous to both babies. Dr. Roger B. Newman, vice chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Medical University of South Carolina, said this outcome is much more likely with test-tube babies. Somewhere in laboratory or in the process back toward the mother, (the fetuses) become disrupted and fuse together, he said. Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/07/10/twins.mystery.ap/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SCOUTED: More cam phone mischief
snaparazzi (SNAP.uh.rawt.see) n. Amateur photographers who pursue celebrities to take their pictures. --snaparazzo (singular) n. Example Citation - Nokia has developed a security camera that can beam pictures directly to a phone if temperature or motion sensors are triggered, a useful safety tool. Yet the camera could be used to spy if installed inconspicuously at the site. Celebrities could be the biggest target of phonecam photographers. A service called CelebSnapper is already dedicated to receiving phonecam shots of celebrities from mobile phone users and transmitting them to its paid subscribers. It has coined a term for its would-be photo-newshounds: the snaparazzi. --Daithi O Hanluain, Forget F-Stops: These Cameras Have Area Codes, The New York Times, July 3, 2003 Backgrounder - This word combines snapshot (with its connotations of amateur photography) and paparazzi (freelance photographers who hound celebrities to take candid pictures to sell to newspapers and magazines). The singular form of the latter is paparazzo, a word that became associated with annoying celebrity photographers thanks to Federico Fellini's film La Dolce Vita (The Good Life), which included a street photographer named Signor Paparazzo. Appropriately, paparazzo means buzzing insect in dialect Italian. Earliest Citation - Last month we caught Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman smooching at a Leafs game. Now it's your turn to make a name for yourself. Catch a current celebrity doing anything but what they're famous for, and your photo could be Pic of the Week in our Snaparazzi feature. Keep your negs but send us a quick, one-hour photo of the paparazzi image you've snagged. --Be a Sun Snaparazzi, The Toronto Sun, June 15, 1994 See Also - celebriphilia: http://www.wordspy.com/words/celebriphilia.asp ego wall: http://www.wordspy.com/words/egowall.asp paparazzification: http://www.wordspy.com/words/paparazzification.asp rumorazzi: http://www.wordspy.com/words/rumorazzi.asp Words About Words - Poems ... make us love this gaudy, mother-scented, mud-bedaubed language of ours. A cunning, low tongue, English, with its rich vocabulary of slander and concupiscence and sport, its fine Latin overlay and French bric-a-brac, and when someone speaks poetry in it, it stirs our little monolingual hearts. --Garrison Keillor, American writer and humorist, _Good Poems_, 2002 Miscellanea - The WordSpy mailing list is available in an HTML version that bears an uncanny resemblance to the pages on the Word Spy Web site (see the address below). If you'd like to try it out, send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include only the command html wordspy (without the quotation marks) in the Subject line. For more Word Spy words, see the Word Spy Archives: http://www.wordspy.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's no-hitters you want, Ryan is better. I'll admit that I don't know more than the first thing about Sandy Kofax, but I feel compelled to point out that the above argument is specious - in my eyes, anyways. If arguing that Pitcher X is the best pitcher of all-time, it is possible to argue that the best pitcher of all-time was the most well-rounded pitcher of all-time. As such, it is conceivable that this best well-rounded pitcher of all-time may not be the top pitcher in most categories, or even all categories. For example, a pitcher that was 2nd or 3rd in every metric of analysis might arguably be the best pitcher of all-time. Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really follow that up with other signgle-measures of greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not Kofax merits the title of greatest pitcher of all-time. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you think Sandy Koufax was the best pitcher of all time, you're simply wrong. There is no serious argument for this. If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. So, you are arguing that the greatest pitcher of all-time *must* have had longevity? I am surprised that you claim so confidently that it is foolish to disagree with this principle. In my mind, if one considers injuries to essentially be a random and rare function, I think that it would be very sensible to make discounts for careers cut-short by injury - even if one still wanted to devalue a pitcher (or player) whose career seemed to end early because of prematurely declining skills. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
Robert Seeberger wrote: Gardner is a quite good journeyman writer. Expendable is pretty good, but its sequels are even more fun. I read this recently and enjoyed it. Care to give the titles of the sequels??? Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spider space elevator? (was: US-based missilestohaveglobalreach)
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 01:03:14PM +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: And once again, we have a winner! Congratulations! Which one? Which won? Witch wun?? Did I need to spell it out for you? ;- Regards, Ray/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thus, the mere fact that Sandy Kofax isn't tops in strikeouts - (and the fact that you didn't really follow that up with other signgle-measures of greatness) tells me nothing about whether or not Kofax merits the title of greatest pitcher of all-time. JDG John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. A pitcher has only one function on a team. No-hitters, strikeouts, stuff, they're all meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping runs off the board. Bob was telling me about strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and park context). As you get more sophisticated we can talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these wonderful tools that people have invented to measure exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to take into account all these varying factors that go into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was really great. = 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: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
---Original Message--- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a running back ran for 2500 yards his rookie season and never played another game, would you say he was the greatest running back of all time, or one who had a really great season? Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several very good years before getting injured. I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him #1. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Sandy Kofax
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, a guy who somewhat matches that profile is Terrell Davis - who was one of three backs to ever run for 2000+ yards in a season, and had several very good years before getting injured. I think that Terrell Davis belongs in the pantheon of greatest NFL backs, even if I wouldn't rate him #1. JDG Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. = 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: Speaking of sports Re: Why we cast novels
From: Kevin Tarr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Ahem, that was John as in 'jmh', not Jon. But that's OK. grin The only people more superstitous than sports figures are sports fans! I was absolultely convinced when I was a kid that the Cowboys couldn't lose if I wore a certain hat. The fact that they did lose didn't dissuade me in the slightest! And don't get me started on my brother and Magic Fingers (changing the channel at certain times while watching sporting events)... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 08:13 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: The reason I term myself Agnostic rather than Atheist is that though I have no doubt that there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that watches over us and listens to our prayers, and absolutely no doubt that the idea of heaven is hogwash, So you are an atheist! I can't know without a doubt that there may be vastly superior beings - on the order of being gods. So you're an atheist on the matter of actual god(s), but agnostic on the possibility of god-like (But not god(s)) beings. That would still be an atheist position I think. I have no way of being sure that the origins of life on this planet were not initialized by such a being either. I doubt it, but cannot verify my mistrust. We might all be in the Matrix, but I don't worry about it :) -- 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: SCOUTED: Fraternal Twins Share a Placenta
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Twin mystery confounds doctors First case of fraternal twins sharing a placenta documented (AP) --Contradicting nearly all the medical textbooks, doctors have proven for the first time that fraternal, or nonidentical, twins can share a placenta. Guess the folks at http://www.tttsfoundation.org/ will have to update their info page snip Fraternal twins occur when two sperm fertilize two eggs at the same time; they are relatively common with test tube babies because multiple embryos are put in the uterus to increase the chances of producing a baby. They're also relatively common in cases where fertility drugs were involved to induce ovulation. And if twins run in the family, it's most likely fraternal twins. (Maybe some genetic basis for releasing more than one egg in a cycle or something?) Riley said whether there is one placenta or two is important because if twins share blood circulation, one can receive more of the blood, and therefore more of the nutrients and oxygen. This is dangerous to both babies. This is called Twin-to-twin Transfusion Syndrome. As well as receiving more nutrients and oxygen, the one twin will also end up with more amniotic fluid in its amniotic sac. It's possible in some cases to treat this by doing amniocentesis repeatedly on the sac of the receiving twin. Somehow this helps the donor twin some. More drastic measures involving surgery on the placenta can be done as well, but that's riskier. (For more info, check out the URL I provided above.) Julia Guess what's one topic in the possible problems section in books about twin pregnancies? :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: more on printing organs
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns3916 Nanotechnology may create new organs 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. snip This could nearly eliminate the sad hunt for organ donors!* When we figure out how to transform stem cells into the desired cell type - liver, heart, kidney, pancreas etc. - then there will be less need to use powerful immune suppressants (currently required life-long by most transplant patients) also. *I say 'nearly' b/c catastophic organ failure does occur with little warning (frex certain viral cardiomyopathies, liver failure associated with pregnancy/peripartum), and there won't be time to grow a replacement - unlike organ deterioration that takes months to years (as in a diabetic's kidneys or pancreas) to reach failure. What Would Guttenberg Think? 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: Reading lists.
Someone wrote: For the Harry Potter books, I like the UK cover art better, at least judging from Order Of The Phoenix. And I regret the dumbing down of the book 1 title in the US by changing Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone. Tom Beck replied: Me too. I have purchased all 5 books from amazon.co.uk because I preferred the cover art on the Bloomsbury editions. The binding on some wasn't all that good (esp. Goblet of Fire), but Order of the Phoenix apppears to be much better manufactured. My wife and I have the paperback Bloomsbury editions, purchased for us at Heathrow during a layover by my wife's maternal grandmother who works in Spain. We didn't want to wait for the 5th one to come out in paperback, though, so we ordered the hardback from amazon.co.uk. It came a week before they said it would (I didn't order it until the day after it was released), and was less expensive than the American edition from amazon.com, shipping included. I'm very happy with the service I received from them. And now that I've discovered how to change the region on my DVD player, I plan to order the British versions of the first two movies. I think I've posted this before, but just in case... Almost every brand and model of DVD player has special codes that allow you to change regions. Just go to: http://www.regionfreedvd.net/players.html Select your player from the dropdown box and click View Methods. Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
Bryon wrote: For the Harry Potter books, I like the UK cover art better, at least judging from Order Of The Phoenix. Yeah, it's a lot better for *all* of them. And I regret the dumbing down of the book 1 title in the US by changing Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone. There are some web sites out there that list all of the changes between the original British and US editions. For the most part it's a word here, a phrase there, typically 15 to 30 changes per book, things like revising changed to studying. One book (_Prisoner of Azkaban_, I think) has one instance where a passage of three or four sentences was completely rewritten and the ideas from the sentences re-ordered. I'll see if I can find that link, if anyone is interested. I much prefer reading the Harry Potter books in their original English :-) and any words a typical American might not understand are pretty easy to figure out from context. The suits at the American publishing company just think that all Americans are idiots. Rowling has said in interviews that she regrets agreeing to the changes, but from what I understand she is now contractually obligated through the entire series to allow the American publisher to make any changes they feel would make the books easier for an American to understand. Reggie Bautista _ Help STOP 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: SCOUTED : 'Reading Rainbow' and its elusive pot of gold
--- Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's wholesome, bright, and unpolluted by advertising tie-in gimmicks; it promotes literacy, and my children benefit from it enormously, so it's only natural that the PBS show Reading Rainbow is about to lose its signature butterfly wings due to a lack of funding. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0710/p09s02-coop.html Even though I was a bit old for the show, I did enjoy watching it. It would be a shame to see Reading Rainbow disappear. snip I'm *way* too old to have watched it as a young 'un, but have seen it with friends' kids -- it seems top-quality to me, and Levar Burton is an engaging yet steady presence. Ditto the shame remark. 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: Reading lists.
Andrew Crystall wrote: Not really a direct reply, but I'm currently reading _The Mote Arround Mucheson's Eye_ (yes, the sequel to _A Mote in god's Eye_) In the US its known as The Gripping Hand. Not quite as good as Mote (which, IMHO, belongs in the top 10 ever). In fact, I didn't like it much the first time around--better the second read about a year later when I read the two back to back. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
Andrew Crystall wrote: Not really a direct reply, but I'm currently reading _The Mote Arround Mucheson's Eye_ (yes, the sequel to _A Mote in god's Eye_) George Akin replied: In the US its known as The Gripping Hand. Not quite as good as Mote (which, IMHO, belongs in the top 10 ever). For some reason, whenever people ask me for my favorite books, I always forget _Mote_. It really is an excellent story. 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
Rubber duckies invading New England
http://tinyurl.com/go9z A container ship lost a container of bath toys, including 29,000 rubber duckies, over 11 years ago. The toys have been floating in the oceans ever since and some are believed to be washing onto the shores of New England. Julia Sing Along With Ernie Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
Michael Harney wrote: I know that this list was originally started as a list dedicated to discussion of specific authors and their books, so I thought I would bring up a topic that is closer to being actually on topic in the little time that I have to compose email today (at least part of the reason that I haven't replied to other threads). I have been reading more than usual recently. Mostly because the air conditioner I have in my room sucks, so leaving my computer on all day makes the room intollerably hot on days when the air conditioner is not working the way it should. It started with reading _Dragonseye_ by Anne McCaffrey (one of the Pern novels). That was followed by reading _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ by Phillip K. Dick. After that I read _/_ by Greg Bear. I am currently reading _Expendable_ by James Alan Gardner. I wanted to ask those who have read some/many of the Pern novels a question. I have only read _Dragonseye_ and _The Dolphins of Pern_. The question I have is: Are the events in some of the other pern books more epic? Let me elaborate for clarity. I liked the books, but I found them to be a little lacking in the end because there never seems to be any grand, exciting events in the stories. No major climax to the story. Are the other Pern novels similar, or are there better ones? I haven't read much of Anne McCaffrey; nothing of Pern, but I did read Dinosaur Planet which I'd rate as average. I have a friend who highly recommends her Ship Who ... series and maybe someday I'll read some, but I have of them none in the queue. On the topic of _/_ by Greg Bear, I may start another thread later about that book, but I wanted to ask, for those who have read more of Greg Bear's books if _/_ represented a One of Greg Bear's better books, was on par with most of his books, or were his other books superior? I ask because I quite liked that novel. It was a bit like pushing a heavy item on wheels. It was a little hard to start reading (mostly because the events at the begining are so disjointed), but once momentum was built up (and events started to tie together), it was difficult to stop reading it. If some people would care to recommend some other Greg Bear books, that would be appreciated. I like Greg Bear a lot, but his books can run hot and cold for me. Queen of Angels and / were okay, tepid. Moving Mars (Nebula 1994) is very good and in a list of 10 or so Mars books I'd recomend if you're interested. Vitals was okay, very confusing to me; not sure I understood the ending. Eon and sequels fell into the typical sequel spiral, first very good then the two others, while okay, weren't as good. I could say the same for The Forge of God and Anvil of the Stars; the first very good and the sequel just not as satisfying. Blood Music (Hugo novella 1984), Darwin's Radio (Nebula 2000) and Darwin's Children are all first rate. Dinosaur Summer is pretty good fun. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
School adopts unconstitutional bible classes
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/071103/met_174-8955.000.shtml School board approves Bible class Web posted Thursday, July 10, 2003 By Greg Rickabaugh | Staff Writer An off-campus Christian education program was approved for a full year Thursday for one Richmond County school, but some school board members have growing concerns about the controversial course. Member Kenneth Echols wondered whether asking organizers to hold it after school would prevent pupils from missing part of their physical-education classes. Kids need Christianity, he said. But I know it really interrupts the teachers and the classes. On Thursday, the school board voted 8-2 to approve the instruction committee's recommendation to extend the pilot program at John Milledge Elementary School, which had 17 pupils last spring leave school to attend a weekly 45-minute session at Crawford Avenue Baptist Church. The program is run and funded by Christian Learning Centers, and costs the school district nothing, school board member Helen Minchew said. Members John Seitz and Y.N. Myers Jr. voted against extending the program, but gave no specific reasons during a discussion period. Board attorney Pete Fletcher said he plans to formulate an evaluation to see how the school is affected by allowing the children to leave school. He stressed that the school system would not evaluate the Bible-based curriculum because the system must remain neutral. Member Marion Barnes suggested examining the effect on the participants. You can look at the students, their character, he said. Compare it to others who don't attend the program. But Mr. Fletcher warned that the school system was avoiding a legal problem by taking a position of neutral accommodation, not active participation. Mr. Echols worried that allowing children to leave for a program would open the school system up for requests from other organizations and would interrupt instruction time. He suggested that religion is a family issue. Parents are responsible for raising their children and educating them, he said. Another concern for the board members focused on whether pupils who didn't attend the program felt pressure for not going. Mr. Fletcher said the evaluation he will write might cover that issue, along with liability questions. The school board will reevaluate the program in a year, when it could consider expanding it. Last spring, 17 pupils from Milledge Elementary School were given free Bibles; shown how to locate specific passages; and taught skills in memorization, vocabulary, verbal and test-taking skills. Teacher Georgene Crawford and volunteer aide Patricia Sims also taught the pupils about conflict resolution and how to control anger. The first semester went really well, said Dr. David Miller of the Christian Learning Centers. We're hoping we get more kids. Milledge Principal Anna Reid said she expects to have more interest in the coming year because many parents didn't understand the program last year. I feel that the program was very beneficial to the Christian experiences of our students, she wrote in a letter to the school board. The class is free to pupils, who are required to get parental permission to attend. Some pupils give up some of their physical-education classes, but they still receive the state-mandated hours in the class. Other time is taken from recess and lunch periods. After 12 sessions in the spring, the teachers passed out a survey. Asked what they liked best, pupils said the Bible test, praying, memorizing Bible verses and learning about Jesus' death. Some said there wasn't enough time in the class and that it was scheduled during PE class. PUPILS SPEAK Seventeen pupils who participated in the pilot program last spring were asked what they learned. Some responses: If someone calls you a name, you shouldn't worry about it, just to walk away. And to hate is a sin. To love my enemies at school and not to try to get revenge. To know I can go to school, do good, get a job and help others. When I go to heaven, I will receive my reward. That God never lies. To be good, not to fight, but to talk about it. Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project. - James Madison ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 4:34:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think he was the most dominant pitcher on a per-game basis you're also wrong, but at least you have a case and we can talk about it. Arguing that he was better than Seaver or Clemens is foolish. He didn't pitch for long enough. He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 9:19:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, that's my point. What is the purpose of a pitcher? It's to keep runs off the board. That's it. A pitcher has only one function on a team. No-hitters, strikeouts, stuff, they're all meaningless. The only thing that counts is keeping runs off the board. Bob was telling me about strikeouts and stuff and no-hitters. The first two of those are things that get you to a good pitcher. The third is just a fun statistic. It's impressive, but a no-hitter does no more for a team than a one-hitter. That's why we talk about ERA. Even more it's why we talk about ERA+ (that is, ERA adjusted for league and park context). As you get more sophisticated we can talk about Win Shares (Bill James's new invention) or VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) - all these wonderful tools that people have invented to measure exactly how good a pitcher is. They are designed to take into account all these varying factors that go into what makes a great pitcher. Bob, so far as I can tell, is arguing that we should just abandon all of these ideas in favor of I remember that guy, he was really great. Well its not that I remember him. I do of course he drove me crazy beating my beloved invincible Yankees. It is what others have said about him. Experts who have played with him or against him or who have broad experience. They all say he was the best for that 5 year period. As to the other stuff the key is not in fact keeping runs off the board. The key is winning games. Now it is true that it is often hard to measure the value of an individual in a team game so all sorts of statisitical surogates are devised. But that is all they are. Koufax's reputation is based on his performances in big games over that 5 year period. No comes close. Pedro and Maddux have had chances but they could not win on their own. Roger self destructed several times before his success in New York. Koufax won those games with very little support from his team. He did not need it. As to things like no hitters shutouts and complete games. They are indicators of dominance. They tell us that he was so good that he could put himself in position to have a sufficient number of times to have 4 in 5 years. Think about it this way. Suppose a pitcher has the stuff to pitch a no hitter on a given day. What are the odds he will succeed? 1 in 3, 1 in 6? So to get 4 in 5 years you have to pitch well enough to get the no hitter 15-25 times. I don't have the stats in frount of me but I remember that he had whole bunches of 1 and 2 hitters (almost no-hitters) in there. Back to ERA: My contention is that based on all that is know about Koufax; his skill his strength and his mental toughness he would have had the same ERA now as he did then. That he and Pedro both have the best ERA possible for pitchers. What the rest of the league did against each other was irrelevant. They were all overmatched. By the way I thing Tom Seaver a pretty knowledgable baseball guy who had some knowledge of Koufax growing up in California has said he thinks Koufax was the best pitcher ever. = ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 9:28:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Furthermore, injuries aren't a random or infrequent factor for pitchers. They are a non-random, frequent factor. Power pitchers are less likely to get injured that soft-tossers (Koufax, of course, was the quintessential power pitcher). Furthermore, pitchers get injured all the time (unless they play for the Oakland A's right now). The odds of a pitcher having a major injury in a season are (IIRC) over 10%. Being able to avoid getting injured is a talent just as surely as striking someone out - because if you're on the bench, you can't contribute to your team. Surely one part of Greg Maddux's remarkable ability is the fact that he is never, ever injured. That's not random - it's because he has flawless mechanics and is the most efficient pitcher in the history of the modern game But here you are being grossly unfair to compare Koufax to Maddux. The way pitchers are used and or allow themselves to be used today is completely different than it was then. Koufax's used an ice bucket and a rub they use on horses to protect his arm. He went out on 3 days rest regardless of how he felt. He played through major injuries that would have put pitchers on the DL for months. One year he damaged an artery in his pitching hand. Without modern tests who knew. What people did know was that his finger turned blue when he pitched, that it was cold as ice and numb. But he pitched through most of the year and almost lost the finger to gangrene. Now he was no fool. But it was a different era and pitchers did not sit out. Can you imagine management or the player allowing something like that to happen now? Guys go on the DL if their finger is blue from nail polish rather than ischemia. Koufax's career was short but during his five year reign he virtually never missed a turn to pitch. He was durable but did not have longevity. Things would have been different now. As to the value of a long career this is a tough one. Longevity is not enough. Don Sutton won over 300 games and pitched for ever; so did Phil Neikro. Are they in the same league with these guys? Clemens has done both and that makes him one of the greatest pitchers ever. Same with Maddux. But how long is long enough? Koufax did his stuff in 5 years. Not a flash in the pan. He went out on top (although not without pain). He could have pitched longer but he felt he would not be able to maintain his skill and would certainly damage his arm. He walked away. Now this choice certainly means that if one wants to measure longevity (certainly a reasonable thing to do) that he will lose points. But we value things other than longevity (or in addition to them). Cal Ripkin's consecutive game record is an example of a feet of longevity. In and of itself does this mean he was a great player? Including the record does than make him the greatest short stop of all time? By the way, sometimes when statistical tools fail to produce an answer that is obviously correct it becomes necessary to devise new tools. So have James go back to the drawing board. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 11:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. Well how about Jim Brown. Walked away from football still in his prime after several dominant years. Some people say he was the best ever. Played in a different era so hard to compare to current players. But he was just that much better than everyone else. I think that is my point. In comparing eras lots of things change. But there will still be a mean of skill and a distribution. It seems to me that Koufax was several standard deviations above the mean, a few more than Pedro or anyone else. By the way by your criteria of greatness Newton and Einstein could not be considered amoung the greates physicist ever. Each had one breakout year and a few years of major productivity. Both kind of faded after that. It is accomplishment not longevity that makes one great (although longevity is in itself an accomplishment). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/11/2003 11:07:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, that's my entire point. He's a fine running back. But it takes more than that to be the best ever. Well how about Jim Brown. Walked away from football still in his prime after several dominant years. Some people say he was the best ever. Played in a different era so hard to compare to current players. But he was just that much better than everyone else. I think that is my point. In comparing eras lots of things change. But there will still be a mean of skill and a distribution. It seems to me that Koufax was several standard deviations above the mean, a few more than Pedro or anyone else. By the way by your criteria of greatness Newton and Einstein could not be considered amoung the greates physicist ever. Each had one breakout year and a few years of major productivity. Both kind of faded after that. It is accomplishment not longevity that makes one great (although longevity is in itself an accomplishment). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
- Original Message - From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:30 AM Subject: Re: Reading lists. Robert Seeberger wrote: Gardner is a quite good journeyman writer. Expendable is pretty good, but its sequels are even more fun. I read this recently and enjoyed it. Care to give the titles of the sequels??? No problemo! Expendable Commitment Hour (mildly interesting, mostly dealing with Spark Lords) Vigilant Hunted Ascending Trapped Basic premise: Humans are allowed to travel interstellar space by the mysterious and all powerful League Of Peoples, but if you are responsible for the death of another sentient, the moment you cross over into interstellar space you drop dead. The Space Navy is filled with corruption and is involved in all sorts of skullduggery. People with even minor physical imperfections are considered expendable. There are planets out there populated by descendents of modified human stock, colonies created by aliens thousands of years before humans achieved spaceflight. There is a planet of no return. This could have all been pulpy hackwork, but is actually pulled off intelligently and with good humor. xponent Oh Shit! Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reading lists.
G. D. Akin wrote: I haven't read much of Anne McCaffrey; nothing of Pern, but I did read Dinosaur Planet which I'd rate as average. I have a friend who highly recommends her Ship Who ... series and maybe someday I'll read some, but I have of them none in the queue. I found the Dinosaur Planet books to be the most disappointing ones of hers that I've read, just to offer my opinion. You might like _Decision at Doona_. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way I thing Tom Seaver a pretty knowledgable baseball guy who had some knowledge of Koufax growing up in California has said he thinks Koufax was the best pitcher ever. Well Koufax, Bob, a pretty knowledgeable baseball guy, said that Pedro was better than he was. That's worth something too, don't you think? Bob, I have some idea of what a phenomenally accomplished doctor you are. I'm just asking that you to apply the same sort of rigorous thinking to something that is much easier to analyze - if you put your emotions aside. Let's say I was a pharma rep for GSK trying to sell you on Zocor. If I came to you and told you how great Zocor was, I'm guessing that you would demand the clinical data. If I hemmed and hawed for a while, and then finally admitted that, well, the clinical data says that Lipitor is stronger, what would you say? If I told you about how these great doctors (from before Penicillin was invented, or the role of cholesterol in heart disease was discovered) all thought Zocor was stronger, that might impress you a little bit, I guess. And I could tell you stories about that time Lipitor didn't do anything for my friend's cholesterol problem, but Zocor cleared it right up. But if the MM data said that Lipitor has better life-extending results (which I think it does) and the clinical data said that it was stronger at lowering LDL and raising HDL (which I'm pretty sure it is) then would you prescribe Zocor to your patients just because I told you it was wonderful? I hope not. You said that Pedro and Koufax both had the best ERA possible. But that's not really true, is it? Gibson had a better ERA than Koufax at least once - much better. So it was _possible_ to put up better numbers than Koufax did during his era - and Gibson wasn't in Dodger Stadium. There's one yardstick for you right there. No pitcher has put up numbers that even vaguely resemble Pedro's at his peak during the last few years. But there were pitchers who put up numbers that were comparable to (or better than) those of Koufax. Gibson, IIRC, won 26 games in 1968. Now, W-L for pitchers aren't particularly informative, but, well, how often did Koufax do that? Now, here is the player page for Koufax at the Baseball Prospectus Web Site: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/koufasa01.shtml And here is the player page for Pedro: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/martipe02.shtml You tell me what those numbers suggest. I'd point out that Stuff, which is a rough statistic that BP uses for dominance, has Pedro as considerably better than Koufax in his best seasons. If we use your metrics - that is, just against the other players of his time, ignoring park effects, difficulty, everything - then why isn't Gibson the best ever? His 1968 season was better than anything Koufax ever did, phenomenal though Koufax was. If Koufax had five seasons so much better than everyone else that they automatically qualify him as the most dominant pitcher ever - why didn't he win five Cy Youngs? Randy Johnson has five. Clemens has six. Maddux won _four in a row_. Pedro won three in a row, and probably deserved more. You mentioned postseason performance. The first question, of course, is how many Division Series did Koufax have to pitch his team through? How many League Championship Series? So yes, he did very well in the World Series. But in terms of pure postseason performance, did he do anything as impressive as Randy Johnson last year? Mike Mussina in 1997? Lots of people claimed that Barry Bonds couldn't hit in the clutch because of his poor postseason performance. Do you still think so after last year? Willy Mays, I would point out, _sucked_ in the postseason. Does anyone blame him for it? No, of course not. Players who people like are clutch players, and players who people don't like aren't, and that's as far as it goes. The same thing with injuries. It's true that Maddux has much better medical care available to him than Koufax did - not that he's ever needed it, but certainly it's true. But Koufax had better medical care than Walter Johnson. Which one was more durable? Koufax was legendarily fragile during his own era. If you're right, and we only count players against their contemporaries, what does that tell us? Furthermore, Koufax had what Maddux and Pedro don't - a high pitching mound, and the chance to take it easy against at least half the batters in the other teams lineup. Don't you think that decreased his chance of injury? If statistics only told us what we know to be true, then they would be useless anyways. It's only when they tell us something that is contrary to our perceptions that they are useful. In this case, the statistics are saying something that you don't like, Bob, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Now, if they declared that Andy Pettite was the greatest pitcher ever, then clearly we'd have to cook up some new statistics.
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. Are you sure? Maddux won four consecutive Cy Young Awards. Did Koufax do that? I know that he did not. Randy Johnson has now won four consecutive Cy Youngs as well, I believe. Same question. = 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: Sandy Kofax
At 06:33 PM 7/11/2003 -0700, you wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He didn't pitch long enough because he pitched in a different era. He was every bit the physical specimen that Clemens is. For 5 years consecutive years he was the best in the game. No one else can make that claim. Are you sure? Maddux won four consecutive Cy Young Awards. Did Koufax do that? I know that he did not. Randy Johnson has now won four consecutive Cy Youngs as well, I believe. Same question. = Gautam Mukunda Yo G, do you know WHY Koufax didn't win the Cy Young award four years in a row? Be honest now, I didn't until a few minutes ago. I really wish Bob would quit disagreeing with you. I mean, Pedro pitches against the best players, from the worst pitching mounds, in the best hitters stadiums, with the smallest strike zones and foul ground, in front of the best fans (at home) or worst fans (on the road), in the best decade of last century and the best one so far this century. With all those facts, it's obvious he's the bestest! Kevin T. - VRWC I'll take Walter Johnson for $800 Alex. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:51 PM Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism. Robert Seeberger wrote: Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of deities or Deity. I'd also like to hear your opinion on the qualities that would make or not make them good science. And while you're at it, how about a rundown on the repeatable experiments performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of The easter bunny, the tooth fairy, santa claus and, for that matter, IPUs. Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug. And to be perfectly honest, I would trust Erik to give a straightforward answer (if there actually is one) more than anyone else participating in this discussion. If the answer is Its never actually been done or Its not possible to perform such an experiment and get meaningful results it might change the discussion a little, but that has to be accepted. BTW, WTF an IPU? I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic or flippant, but you seem to have been convinced at some point by something you consider factual or actual, and I'm curious as to what it was you found to be convincing. I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. I would think that since a majority (at least it appears this way correct me if I'm wrong) of the world believes in some sort of deity and since 'deities have been a dominant meme throughout history, that the burden of proof falls on both sides equally. Why? Well, you aren't going to change 10,000+ years of Theism with sophistry, no matter how compelling, with out some proof of your own. Thats not exactly fair, and not really scientific, but it sure beats the hell out of yes it is/no it isn't type arguments repeated ad infinitum. Bungee Cord Type Argument Theists have 10 millenium long traditions that include miracles, supernatural events, avatars of deities, ascensions, holy books, holy men, prophesies.. ect yadda yadda yadda that reinforce theists belief (rightly or wrongly) Athiests have... lots of arguments Agnostics are unsure /Bungee Cord Type Argument When peole are looking at the world and trying to decide what to believe, what will they find convincing, something presented as an argument or something presented as history? Can you see where my question is coming from? Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? 1 Why would you ask others to do something you are unwilling to do? 2 I stated my case earlier in the thread. But I don't know what to call my position. I can send you that post if you missed it. xponent May God Bless You Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Questec (was Sandy Kofax)
I'm curious as to peoples opinion on questec, the system baseball is now using to evaluate the umpire's strike calling. Info at http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0605/1563649.html Personally, I'm very happy to see them doing something about the inconsistency of the zone. I'm not completely sold on questec itself, but it's about time they're doing something. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On the topic of atheism.
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I do believe that since our scientific capacities and capabilities are increasing each day (and with them, our knowledge of the universe) that it is perfectly possible and imo, likely that science will one day identify God. But I don't personally need such proof to believe that God exists or see his handiwork. I see God in everything from the intricate details of an insect's wing to the complexity of the human hand. But I can't *prove* it. I just *know*. That's my faith. And I honestly don't care who disagrees with me. :) Great big ditto, right down to the 'marvelous human hand - behold!' which, when I truly think of what 'lies behind' it, inspires such awe that I get goosebumps. Mirabile dictu indeed! Semantics/clarification: do you mean *know* in the sense that it's a bone-deep certainty which you _believe_, despite no scientific proof? That is my own sense of my faith/belief. So it's more of a sensation or feeling than hard knowledge. A RL kind-of-analagous situation is loving another person, and *knowing* that they love you in return; that's really more a deep belief, since we truly cannot know exactly what the other is thinking/feeling, except by how they behave. We might be dead wrong - humans can be very good at deceiving others as well as themselves. But I nevertheless *know* that my parents and friends love me, just as they *know* how I love them. Doug wrote: I would say that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something exists despite a complete absence of credible evidence. Question for yourself and the rest of the believers on the list: If you believe in a god, why? What convinced you? From my own POV (not claiming that my experience is applicable to anyone else), the first statement is a complete non sequitur#: the Divine does not require me to prove Ers existence -- and I have no desire or need to convert anyone to my personal belief, so I don't need to prove it to another person either. # This might not be the right Latin phrase here - I just mean that this is an issue not even 'on my radar screen.' From my Lutheran background comes Faith alone, which I have expanded to encompass the entire Divine-mortal relationship; this is *not* what M Luther himself meant, as he was referring to how one is justified before God (by faith - in Jesus, in the divine sacrifice -- not by good works. This was all in the context of his indignation over the selling of indulgences, and the corruption of what he thought ought to be the relationship between an individual man and God, etc.). So my own belief is based on my experiencing the Divine in numinous moments. These aren't visions, or voices, or the sensation that Somebody Is Watching Me (the latter do occur, but then the somebody is another human who has set off my Danger, Will Robinson! sense). Mine are moments of profound connectedness to others or a place; they can be joyous or grievous; I may be alone or with others; I may have 'invited' the experience by meditating, or it may simply occur suddenly, without any effort on my part. So nothing convinced me or proved that God Existed to me; I just experience(d) -- profound connectedness. This is, I am sure, an unsatisfying response to one who does not experience such moments. I'm sorry that I can't parse it out for you better - I truly would if I knew how. But to those who say how comforting it must be to believe that Somebody is looking out for you - like daddy or mommy --oh, not at all. The Divine Presence has nothing to do with safety, or wealth, or certainty. It is a constant challenge to try to see the Divine in the world and each other, to live as if I can always sense the interconnection, when so often I just want to 'smack some sense into that fool head!' I have to commit *daily* to what I say I believe, WRT how to interact with others; my belief requires that I respond to 'my corner of the world' as if I and others are part of the Divine. And as I've written before, I scream (silently!) at the Divine on a regular basis, b/c so many things/situations in this world just STINK. I do not 'worship out of fear or a desire to please.' Like numinous moments, I sometimes consciously choose to 'address the Divine,' and sometimes it's just a spontaneous outpouring of delight, as unexpected as sudden laughter. I don't believe in a physical hell; I think hell is complete disconnection from the Divine (and thus from everything). I have no idea what 'heaven' might be, or what might happen to my consciousness/spirit/soul after I die -- and frankly _it_doesn't_ matter_. It's how I live *now* and whether some part of the world is a better place for my being in it that's important. My belief system doesn't make me superior to anyone, or more knowledgable; I don't have to belong to some exclusive club to gain self-worth. And whenever I do become presumptuously over-proud, sooner or later
