Re: Controlled Auto-Ignition
Dear Vortexians; Some wag who writes for the Wall Street Journal, wrote an article as though he were Toyota. The article ended by expressing the Company's appreciation for the Prius' customers being willing to spend $9500 up front, to save $550 per year in gas. I'm thinking that this figure doesn't include batteries. Your comments please. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: polonium halos -Now OT
> > Wesley Bruce wrote: > >> Very good question! What alternatives are consistant with Atheism? Send >> to my home address if you choose not to clutter Vortex. >> PS sorry the table did not come out right. >> Harry Veeder wrote: >> You may like to read this book. _Can We Be Good Without God?_ by Robert Buckman. I haven't read it, but I saw the author interviewed on TV. Here is a book review: http://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprGoodWithoutGod.htm Harry
Re: polonium halos -Now OT
I don't know what could be considered consistent with Atheism since there is no definitive text for Atheists. Harry Wesley Bruce wrote: > Very good question! What alternatives are consistant with Atheism? Send > to my home address if you choose not to clutter Vortex. > PS sorry the table did not come out right. > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Must an Atheist believe in oblivion after death >> if he doesn't believe in God? >> >> Harry >> >> Wesley Bruce wrote: >> >> >> >>> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> >>> Wesley Bruce wrote: > Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. > > > > > An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry >>> Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith >>> or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their >>> choice of faith. >>> Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute >>> truth or absolute oblivion is faced. >>> The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. >>> See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ >>> I'll pluck a table from the site. >>> Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as >>> presenting the following decision matrix: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> /*God exists*/ >>> >>> >>> >>> /*God does not exist*/ >>> >>> /*Wager for God*/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Gain all >>> >>> >>> >>> Status quo >>> >>> /*Wager against God*/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Misery >>> >>> >>> >>> Status quo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In other words >>> >>> * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the >>> pleasures of eternity. >>> >>> * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then >>> oblivion. >>> >>> * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some >>> judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will >>> be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my >>> knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a >>> place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple >>> absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the >>> source of unselfish goodness. >>> >>> * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I >>> gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then >>> oblivion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Re: polonium halos -Now OT
Very good question! What alternatives are consistant with Atheism? Send to my home address if you choose not to clutter Vortex. PS sorry the table did not come out right. Harry Veeder wrote: Must an Atheist believe in oblivion after death if he doesn't believe in God? Harry Wesley Bruce wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their choice of faith. Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute truth or absolute oblivion is faced. The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ I'll pluck a table from the site. Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as presenting the following decision matrix: /*God exists*/ /*God does not exist*/ /*Wager for God*/ Gain all Status quo /*Wager against God*/ Misery Status quo In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the source of unselfish goodness. * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then oblivion.
OT: Excerpt from "The Goal of Human Existence"
Excerpt from: "The Goal of Human Existence" Source: Broadcast on behalf of the United Jewish Appeal, November 4, 1943 Sound Recording as MP3 file http://www.albert-einstein.org/sound7.html "Ladies and gentlemen, our age is proud of the progress it has made in man's intellectual development. The search and striving for truth and knowledge is one of the highest of man's qualities - though often, the pride is most loudly voiced by those who strive the least. And certainly we should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. It cannot lead, it can only serve; and it is not fastidious in its choice of a leader. This characteristic is reflected in the qualities of its priests, the intellectuals. The intellect has a sharp eye for methods and tools, but is blind to ends and values. So it is no wonder that this fatal blindness is handed on from old to young and today involves a whole generation."
Re: polonium halos
Must an Atheist believe in oblivion after death if he doesn't believe in God? Harry Wesley Bruce wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Wesley Bruce wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs >> you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist >> has a big heart he would say yes. >> >> Harry >> >> >> > Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith > or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their > choice of faith. > Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute > truth or absolute oblivion is faced. > The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. > See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ > I'll pluck a table from the site. > Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as > presenting the following decision matrix: > > > > > > /*God exists*/ > > > > /*God does not exist*/ > > /*Wager for God*/ > > > > Gain all > > > > Status quo > > /*Wager against God*/ > > > > Misery > > > > Status quo > > > > > > In other words > > * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the > pleasures of eternity. > > * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then > oblivion. > > * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some > judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will > be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my > knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a > place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple > absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the > source of unselfish goodness. > > * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I > gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then > oblivion. > >
Re: polonium halos
Harry Veeder wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry Well said Harry. If an atheist doesn't try to kill my rights to my faith or ban me from speaking then he or she is OK and free to have their choice of faith. Yet on their dieing the true test begins and the question of absolute truth or absolute oblivion is faced. The scientist Pascal was asked of his faith. He answered with a wager. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ I'll pluck a table from the site. Following McClennen 1994, Pascal's argument seems to be best captured as presenting the following decision matrix: /*God exists*/ /*God does not exist*/ /*Wager for God*/ Gain all Status quo /*Wager against God*/ Misery Status quo In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. What do I loose. Everything when I discover that I will be held responsible for my actions up to the extent of my knowledge. God honours my demand for his absence, and creates a place where he is not found and I then discover that the simple absence of God is hell itself and it is awful indeed for he is the source of unselfish goodness. * If I disbelieve in God and there is no life after death, what do I gain. Nothing of great value. A fleeting sense of freedom and then oblivion.
Re: OT: "All your bases"...
Jones Beene wrote: Stephen L., No, it should not. In fact, between the two versions recorded by Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead, the line takes three forms, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to do" Ah... It is refreshing to notice that there are others (who have scientific interests as well) who pay attention to the subtleties of popular music - which like it or not - has supplanted much of the traditional poet's (prior) literary function. In the big-picture, this is perhaps another facet of "multi-tasking." Who reads "just" poetry any more (besides other poets)? I like poetry, and rue the fact that - to pry it out of popular music, is not a high probability prospect. But the imperative of multi-tasking in all aspects of life- seems to demand that several art-forms must be combined these days, and the music video is the possible answer to getting an extra one or two more of these various art-mediums together for mass consumption. At the last poetry reading I attended, there were maybe three other souls, myself being the only one who was not family-related. So afterwards, when the bar actually opened, they turned on MTV and almost like magic - many others filed in. This was not overlooked by the poet. And to be honest, it is probably true that due to the indulgent lifestyles of the artists involved in popular music, that they are largely unaware of the deep issues which their words (sound bytes) sometimes dredge up. The two artists you mention went into "early forced retirement" - perhaps because of such indulgences. Time for another nit! Janis did, of course. Jerry Garcia did too, more's the pity, but ... he didn't wasn't the lead singer on Me and Bobby McGee. That was Bob Weir, who last I heard was still performing. And lest it go unnoticed, my inadvertent use of "loose" for "lose" (as pointed out by my technical editor down-under in Oz) turned out to be an unintended pun, adding another layer of poetic-malapropism-not to "what freedom rings"... ;-) Jones
Re: Secrets of bee flight revealed
The article mentions the forces provided by the vortices...but the origin of the "added-mass force" is not explained. quote: > Lastly, there is another peculiar force known as > added-mass force which peaks at the ends of each stroke and is related to > acceleration as the wings direction changes. Harry Rick Monteverde wrote: > Conceptually that means more stuff to push off of. > > These kinds of wings create vortices of air which feature increased mass and > resistance to downward/rearward movement than a similar surface would > encounter while slicing through the medium in a more laminar mode. Probably > get increased stability too. >
Re: Controlled Auto-Ignition
Also called homogeneous charge compression ignition. Here, this site has pictures: http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/hyview/hcci -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:45:31 -0500 Subject: Controlled Auto-Ignition ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: Secrets of bee flight revealed
Conceptually that means more stuff to push off of. These kinds of wings create vortices of air which feature increased mass and resistance to downward/rearward movement than a similar surface would encounter while slicing through the medium in a more laminar mode. Probably get increased stability too. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed This article was brought to my attention on another list. I thought it would be of interest to those who followed the vortex discussion on humming bird flight earlier this year. BTW, the article mentions "added-mass force". Does anyone know what that means? Harry Secrets of bee flight revealed http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8382 16:57 28 November 2005 NewScientist.com news service Helen Phillips Combining robotic modelling with slow-motion videos of airborne honeybees may have helped researchers explain the curious aerodynamics of bee flight. Aeronautical engineers had previously ³proven² that bees cannot fly. So Michael Dickinson, an insect flight expert and colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena, California, US, decided to investigate the forces actually at work during honeybee flight. In 1996, Charlie Ellington at Cambridge University, UK, showed how vortices rolling along the leading edge of many insects¹ wings were a vital source of lift. Most flying insects beat their wings in large strokes typically flapping in arcs of 145° to 165° at a frequency determined by body size to generate aerodynamic forces sufficient for flight. But this cannot explain how a heavy insect with a short wing beat, such as a bee, generates enough lift to fly. Exotic forces Dickinson and his colleagues filmed hovering bees at 6000 frames per second, and plotted the unusual pattern of wing beats. The wing sweeps back in a 90š arc, then flips over as it returns an incredible 230 times a second. The team made a robot to scale to measure the forces involved. See a video of a bee in a flap, here (5MB, .avi format). It is the more exotic forces created as the wing changes direction that dominate, says Dickinson. Additional vortices are produced by the rotation of the wing. ³It¹s like a propeller, where the blade is rotating too,² he says. Also, the wing flaps back into its own wake, which leads to higher forces than flapping in still air. Lastly, there is another peculiar force known as ³added-mass force² which peaks at the ends of each stroke and is related to acceleration as the wings¹ direction changes. The work may help engineers design rotating propellers or more stable and manoeuvrable aircraft. But ³it proves bees can fly, thank God², adds Dickinson. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073_pnas.0506590102)
Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
Grimer wrote: > At 01:40 pm 30/11/2005 -0500, Harry wrote: > >> This article was brought to my attention on another list. >> I thought it would be of interest to those who followed >> the vortex discussion on humming bird flight earlier this year. >> >> BTW, the article mentions "added-mass force". Does anyone >> know what that means? > > > > "Added mass is the weight added to a system due > to the fact that an accelerating or decelerating > body must move some volume of surrounding fluid > with it as it moves. The added mass force opposes > the motion, and acts as a kind of drag force. > > Not to be confused with relativistic mass increase." > > Ain't Wiki wonderful 8-) > > If you really look at it closely it sounds like a mathematical trick which makes the mathematical predictions consistent with experiment. In newtonian mechanics you can't add mass to a system unless it is done by adding a force first. If there is literally no new mass then it is just an old fashioned drag or a lift force. So either we ( the royal we) really mean NEW mass or we mean old force by a new name. Harry
Controlled Auto-Ignition
And you thought spark-knock was a bad thing: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/honda_making_si.html 70 mpg hybrid . . . now that could be cost-effective. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
At 01:40 pm 30/11/2005 -0500, Harry wrote: > This article was brought to my attention on another list. > I thought it would be of interest to those who followed > the vortex discussion on humming bird flight earlier this year. > > BTW, the article mentions "added-mass force". Does anyone > know what that means? "Added mass is the weight added to a system due to the fact that an accelerating or decelerating body must move some volume of surrounding fluid with it as it moves. The added mass force opposes the motion, and acts as a kind of drag force. Not to be confused with relativistic mass increase." Ain't Wiki wonderful 8-)
OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
This article was brought to my attention on another list. I thought it would be of interest to those who followed the vortex discussion on humming bird flight earlier this year. BTW, the article mentions "added-mass force". Does anyone know what that means? Harry Secrets of bee flight revealed http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8382 16:57 28 November 2005 NewScientist.com news service Helen Phillips Combining robotic modelling with slow-motion videos of airborne honeybees may have helped researchers explain the curious aerodynamics of bee flight. Aeronautical engineers had previously ³proven² that bees cannot fly. So Michael Dickinson, an insect flight expert and colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena, California, US, decided to investigate the forces actually at work during honeybee flight. In 1996, Charlie Ellington at Cambridge University, UK, showed how vortices rolling along the leading edge of many insects¹ wings were a vital source of lift. Most flying insects beat their wings in large strokes typically flapping in arcs of 145° to 165° at a frequency determined by body size to generate aerodynamic forces sufficient for flight. But this cannot explain how a heavy insect with a short wing beat, such as a bee, generates enough lift to fly. Exotic forces Dickinson and his colleagues filmed hovering bees at 6000 frames per second, and plotted the unusual pattern of wing beats. The wing sweeps back in a 90 arc, then flips over as it returns an incredible 230 times a second. The team made a robot to scale to measure the forces involved. See a video of a bee in a flap, here (5MB, .avi format). It is the more exotic forces created as the wing changes direction that dominate, says Dickinson. Additional vortices are produced by the rotation of the wing. ³It¹s like a propeller, where the blade is rotating too,² he says. Also, the wing flaps back into its own wake, which leads to higher forces than flapping in still air. Lastly, there is another peculiar force known as ³added-mass force² which peaks at the ends of each stroke and is related to acceleration as the wings¹ direction changes. The work may help engineers design rotating propellers or more stable and manoeuvrable aircraft. But ³it proves bees can fly, thank God², adds Dickinson. Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073_pnas.0506590102)
Re: polonium halos
Wesley Bruce wrote: > Is you world view big enough for God? His is big enough for you. > An atheist would interpret this as a personal request. Based on his beliefs you are asking him if his world is big enough for you. If the atheist has a big heart he would say yes. Harry
Re: Maser
At 10:00 am 30/11/2005 -0600, Richard wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>Light waves can be propagated longitudinally when you consider a shadow
>being cast as a negative of light. Take two spacecraft approaching each
>other at mach plus in deep space. Each craft is internally lighted and has
>windows. As the two craft pass closely, several interesting events occur.
>One event is the light traversing the inside wall across from the window
>will move at a speed exceeding the speed of the opposing spacecraft that
>casts the light.. During this event, Einstein's time/ relativity theory goes
>" out of the window " so to speak. Add for a condition that the two
>spacecraft are moving at different speeds. While the light wave does not
>traverse longitudinally, the shadow " negative" can be considered as
>traveling longitudinally since it moves at a different speed . Brain teaser
>101.
>Richard
Anything which sends Albert
("and all his works, and all his pomps")
out the window can't be all bad.
Better still if he had been born to
Mrs.Ramsbottom as show by the poem
below [for the benefit of JCB who I
I propose for the post of Resident
Poet Laureate. 8-) ]
--
'The Lion and Albert'.
--
There's a famous seaside place called Blackpool
That's noted for fresh air and fun
And Mr. and Mrs.Ramsbottom
Went there with young Albert, their son.
A fine little lad were young Albert,
All dressed in his best, quite a swell.
He'd a stick with an 'orse's 'ead 'andle;
The finest that Woolworth's could sell.
They didn't think much to the ocean,
The waves they were piddlin' and small.
There were no wrecks and nobody drownded,
'Fact, nothin' to laugh at at all!
So, seeking for further amusement,
They paid, and went into the zoo,
Where they'd lions and tigers and camels
And cold ale and sandwiches, too.
There were one great big lion called Wallace
Whose nose was all covered with scars;
He lay in a som-no-lent posture
With the side of 'is face on the bars.
Now Albert 'ad 'eard about lions-
'Ow they was ferocious and wild;
To see lion lyin' so peaceful
Just didn't seem right to the child.
So straightway the brave little feller,
Not showin' a morsel of fear,
Took 'is stick with the 'orse's 'ead 'andle
And stuck it in Wallace's ear.
You could see that the lion din't like it,
For givin' a kind of a roll,
'E pulled Albert inside the cage with 'im
And swallered the little lad - 'ole!
Now Mother 'ad seen this occurrence,
And not knowin' what to do next,
She 'ollered "Yon lion's et Albert!"
An' Father said "Ee, I am vexed."
They complained to an animal keeper
Who said "My, wot a nasty mis'ap;
Are you sure it's your boy 'e's eaten?"
Pa said, "Am I sure? There's 'is cap!"
The manager 'ad to be sent for;
'E came and 'e said "Wot's to-do?"
Ma said "Yon lion's et Albert,
And 'im in 'is Sunday clothes, too!"
Father said "Right's right, young feller-
I think it's a shame and a sin
To 'ave our son et by a lion
And after we paid to come in."
The manager wanted no trouble;
He took out his purse right away,
Sayin' "'Ow much to settle the matter?"
Pa said "Wot do you usually pay?"
But Mother 'ad turned a bit awkward
When she saw where 'er Albert 'ad gone.
She said "No, someone's got to be summonsed!"
So that was decided upon.
The Magistrate gave 'is opinion
That no one was really to blame,
And 'e said that 'e 'oped the Ramsbottoms
Would 'ave further sons to their name.
At that Mother got proper blazin':
"And thank you, sir, kindly," said she-
"Wot, spend all our lives raisin' children
To feed ruddy lions? Not me!"
--
Re: OT: "All your bases"...
Stephen L., No, it should not. In fact, between the two versions recorded by Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead, the line takes three forms, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to do" Ah... It is refreshing to notice that there are others (who have scientific interests as well) who pay attention to the subtleties of popular music - which like it or not - has supplanted much of the traditional poet's (prior) literary function. In the big-picture, this is perhaps another facet of "multi-tasking." Who reads "just" poetry any more (besides other poets)? I like poetry, and rue the fact that - to pry it out of popular music, is not a high probability prospect. But the imperative of multi-tasking in all aspects of life- seems to demand that several art-forms must be combined these days, and the music video is the possible answer to getting an extra one or two more of these various art-mediums together for mass consumption. At the last poetry reading I attended, there were maybe three other souls, myself being the only one who was not family-related. So afterwards, when the bar actually opened, they turned on MTV and almost like magic - many others filed in. This was not overlooked by the poet. And to be honest, it is probably true that due to the indulgent lifestyles of the artists involved in popular music, that they are largely unaware of the deep issues which their words (sound bytes) sometimes dredge up. The two artists you mention went into "early forced retirement" - perhaps because of such indulgences. And lest it go unnoticed, my inadvertent use of "loose" for "lose" (as pointed out by my technical editor down-under in Oz) turned out to be an unintended pun, adding another layer of poetic-malapropism-not to "what freedom rings"... ;-) Jones
Re: Maser
Hi Frank, Light waves can be propagated longitudinally when you consider a shadow being cast as a negative of light. Take two spacecraft approaching each other at mach plus in deep space. Each craft is internally lighted and has windows. As the two craft pass closely, several interesting events occur. One event is the light traversing the inside wall across from the window will move at a speed exceeding the speed of the opposing spacecraft that casts the light.. During this event, Einstein's time/ relativity theory goes " out of the window " so to speak. Add for a condition that the two spacecraft are moving at different speeds. While the light wave does not traverse longitudinally, the shadow " negative" can be considered as traveling longitudinally since it moves at a different speed . Brain teaser 101. Richard - Original Message - From: "Grimer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:02 AM Subject: Re: Maser At 09:19 pm 29/11/2005 -0500, Michael wrote: ... It is also not entirely correct to say that light is a transverse wave and sound is a longitudinal wave and therefore sound cannot be polarized. Sound waves can very definitely be polarized in an acoustically anisotropic medium. Would it also be "not entirely correct to say that" sound is a longitudinal wave and light is a transverse wave and therefore light cannot be propagated longitudinally? Can light waves "very definitely be" propagated longitudinally in a ?? medium perhaps? Just asking. 8-) It would be nice to think they could be. Frank Grimer
Re: OT: "All your bases"...
Jones Beene wrote: The end of November is a celebratory day in certain parts of the world. And the Janus-like seasonal transformation from nice to nauseous, often gets one thinking about other contrasts and self-contradictions. As the other Janis oft-opined, Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to loose". What does that mean, exactly, and shouldn't it be "everything" instead of "nothing" left to loose? No, it should not. In fact, between the two versions recorded by Janis Joplin and the Grateful Dead, the line takes three forms, IIRC, but I can only dig two of them out of my memory just now: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to do" Both versions are a comment on the valuelessness of "freedom" from entangling relationships in your personal life, and have nothing to do with "freedom" in the sense of "free speech" or other civil liberties. It's a different kind of "freedom". The point is that if you have your personal "freedom" it means you have no important relationships in your life which you must work to maintain, and you have nothing important which you need to do. In other words, "freedom" is equivalent to being at a loose end. "Freedom" from personal ties is what the singer has left at the end of the song, after Bobby McGee leaves, and it's not worth much. "Freedom" to sing songs the President doesn't like is another kettle of fish entirely, and it's worth a great deal.
Re: Maser
yes i did. it was a carbide cannon. that is, a replica cannon that gives a loud noise and burst of smoke, but without the cannonball. they made the attackers think it was a real cannon. On 11/30/05, thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did anyone hear the story about the sailors on the cruise boat whofoiled some pirates with a sound cannon? I'm wondering how much the beam attenuated, OTOH, it doesn't take much sonic energy to breakyour ear drums.--- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! - "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
polonium halos
I'm wondering what the existence of the halos means, www.halos.com --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Maser
Did anyone hear the story about the sailors on the cruise boat who foiled some pirates with a sound cannon? I'm wondering how much the beam attenuated, OTOH, it doesn't take much sonic energy to break your ear drums. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
