Re: To the Back of the Bus!
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:17:25 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) Speaking of nipples, I took this picture at Point Lobos weekend before last, but I didn't see in person what the photo reveals. http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/brin-l/photos/view/3157?b=5 Yahoo groups registration required. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
At 02:11 AM Wednesday 9/6/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:17:25 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) Speaking of nipples, I took this picture at Point Lobos weekend before last, but I didn't see in person what the photo reveals. Okay . . . I must be missing it . . . Help Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
On Sep 6, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:11 AM Wednesday 9/6/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:17:25 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) Speaking of nipples, I took this picture at Point Lobos weekend before last, but I didn't see in person what the photo reveals. Okay . . . I must be missing it . . . I think he means the nipple-like protrusion on the top of the rock. I was struggling because I thought that the photo was entitled Kids and Grandkids, so I was looking for them in the picture. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
At 02:33 AM Wednesday 9/6/2006, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 6, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:11 AM Wednesday 9/6/2006, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:17:25 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) Speaking of nipples, I took this picture at Point Lobos weekend before last, but I didn't see in person what the photo reveals. Okay . . . I must be missing it . . . I think he means the nipple-like protrusion on the top of the rock. Yeah, I saw that, but, like you, I was looking for something else . . . I was struggling because I thought that the photo was entitled Kids and Grandkids, so I was looking for them in the picture. Dave -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:41, William T Goodall wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. No, people are calling you a atheist zealot. There's a difference. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and What, bigotry, intollerance, anti-sematism and police-state mentality? Yes, you givre a great civilised example - of precisely why laws against fanatics of any stripe should not mention religion, since you'd try to dodge on that basis. written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Like the ones you constantly make against any beliver? I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. I suggest that you use a few buckets of soap to wash your mouth out. I'm certainly not going to stop pointing out your blatent lies, distortions and intollerance of anything which you define as a religion (as YOU see fit). I agree with Goodall, us religious people are sickening poisonous evil filth. That is why we need the Atonement and forgiveness that can only come in one way. But I can see things from the atheist perspective too. Since all of us are nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atomic and subatomic particles, and such particles are of little intrinsic value any more than a fart, it would be morally acceptable for all of us to just slaughter anyone who doesn't agree with us about everything until none of us are left. Er... come to think of it, that is what we have been trying to do throughout human history. We just haven't been able to develop technology fast enough to get the job done. Kill everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the solution to this meaningless mess. When we are all dead, we can stop fighting. Or course, that won't matter either. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Anti-Matter Collisions
If our Milky Way were to collide with an anti-matter galaxy of equal mass, perhaps one that our astronomers had somehow overlooked, and tomorrow our whole galaxy were to cease to exist, what difference would it make? Is the universe benefited in any way from having the Milky Way as part of its mass? Or would the net loss amount to nothing of any importance? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Morality of Killing Babies
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global warming on Mars
On 9/4/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/grin.asp I wonder what the Barsoomians are doing to increase green house gases like this? For shame! John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/3/06, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets used by friends of mine don't translate to Calc well. I have dual-boot Windows XP and Linux, and Linux is increasingly more useful for my home users than Windows. For most tasks there is only Linux, and Windows is relegated to games. It's a pity that there's no way to play The Sims 2 with Linux, or I would thrash Windows completely. My system is a dual boot XP/Ubuntu machine, and I 'm using Ubuntu as I write this. But it took me days of struggle to get my xorg.conf file in my /etc/X11 directory edited correctly before I could get the 1440x900 display I'm using to work properly. And that is even though in Dapper Drake, the latest and greatest Ubuntu version, the right Nvidia driver was automatically installed when I installed the operating system. On the XP side of my machine, by contrast, all I had to do was download and install the Nividia driver and everything worked perfectly. It took me maybe five minutes. What is better on the desktop, a two day struggle editing a text file of technical jibberish and searching online forums and user groups to learn what to do, or a five minute download and install? Linux is going to take off when it is better than Windows, not merely just as good. Both operating systems are pieces of crap compared with what we really need. Twenty years from now people will shake their heads in wonder that anyone could use a desktop computer back in first decade of the century. We can't even keep malware, the RIAA and abusive governments out of our machines. And tomorrow, Google will be forced to turn over all our search history to George Bush just so he can make sure he approves of where we visit on the web. Why are these companies keeping sensitive data on us anyway? Are there laws that require them to? I don't think so? Why aren't there laws that prohibit them from collecting such data? What ever happened to our rights to be secure in our persons and effects as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? And how come none of these free men and women in this country seem to care? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 12:58PM, John W Redelfs wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? That's just the naturalistic fallacy isn't it? Not very interesting. Bored Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those people either buy from people like me (who pre-install the software), or they buy a brand..which allready has antivirus and firewalls loaded. I have not seen a PC sold in the last 4 years without that software...the ones loaded with infections are older than that, IME. Moreover, a 70-80 minute process lets me reinstall a fresh windows install from scratch without deleting any data. Infections are no problem on a PC, just reinstall the operating system. You have to do that every couple of months anyway just to replace the system files that are damaged every time it crashes and you have to do a cold reboot without shutting down properly. If you are backed up, no big deal. I wonder if a guy could keep all his most important files on one of these new 2GB flash drives, and boot his operating system from a read only DVD or CD-ROM like these Live CDs that some Linux distributions come on? How would malware get you then? You wouldn't even need to have an operating system on your computer, maybe not even as hard drive. Wouldn't that give the makers of spyware, viruses, etc. the fits? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 6 Sep 2006, at 12:40PM, John W Redelfs wrote: I agree with Goodall, us religious people are sickening poisonous evil filth. That is why we need the Atonement and forgiveness that can only come in one way. But I can see things from the atheist perspective too. Since all of us are nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atomic and subatomic particles, and such particles are of little intrinsic value any more than a fart, it would be morally acceptable for all of us to just slaughter anyone who doesn't agree with us about everything until none of us are left. Er... come to think of it, that is what we have been trying to do throughout human history. We just haven't been able to develop technology fast enough to get the job done. Kill everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the solution to this meaningless mess. When we are all dead, we can stop fighting. Or course, that won't matter either. That's very religious talk! Lots of killing and blood. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 6 Sep 2006, at 1:24PM, John W Redelfs wrote: What ever happened to our rights to be secure in our persons and effects as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? And how come none of these free men and women in this country seem to care? I blame it on religion myself :- Opiate of the People Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No: I'm afraid WTG made a mistake in making that equation, so I won't throw my lot in with him on that account. They're both valid points, however: Macs *do* tend to have a longer productive life than PCs and Macs *are* significantly less prone to attack than PCs for reasons that are far too boring to discuss here. Besides Unix and its variants are el spiffo. Unlike Windows, they actually make sense. There is only one right way to do something, and if you do it like that it always works. With Windows there are a dozen ways to do anything, and none of them work all of the time. What a confusing mess. What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave Land wrote: On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as better informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to be. Or, not just shooting his mouth off without being in possession of the facts. Okay, you're supporting the direct comparison of component lifetime vs unprotected time connected to the internet without catching nastyware? Just to be clear. From the page: The brilliantly redesigned Mac Pro enclosure accommodates up to four drives and 2TB of storage; offers 8 DIMM slots to fill with up to 16GB of RAM; provides up to two SuperDrives. You also have four PCI Express slots, and more I/O ports - including two additional ports up front. That's nice. I can't change the motherboard, there are seriously limited drivers avaliable for graphics cards, sound cards...forget it, and so on. And when I upgrade, I can't take much of it with me, with a Mac, compared to a PC. There are no options just to get a new Motherboard and RAM, if everything else would still be useful. Marketing hype aside, I think if you actually look, you'll see that not only do Macs come equipped with a lot that you'd have to _add_ to most PCs, Like what? Remember I build my own PC's, so that's not something I'm bothered about. The premium for pre-assembly is a direct strike against Mac's for me. And you'll find that opening up a Mac and accessing all that expandability is a darn sight easier than most PCs: Entirely based on case choice. My case is very well designed and I have no issues working with it. Blithering. Retard. Don't be so hard on yourself: lots of Windows users are uninformed about how far the Mac has progressed. Yes, it's only 60% more expensive, as I said. Only. Given another, what, twenty years, it might even become avaliable for sale in a form I'd consider buying - one that dosn't tying me to a specific base box. And hard on myself, right. I'm REALLY enthused about getting a mac when all its zealots seem unable to stop themselves from taking cheap potshots about the superiority of their machines when I have zero dogma and are interested in precisely what they do - and how friendly and helpful the community are (which is why I picked SuSe Linux over Red Hat, for reference). Given a lot of the professional programs I run are DirectX/.NET based, and will not run on a Mac without installing Windows (and no, I'm not a good coder and am not prepared to port them), there is absolutely no reason for me to consider one. And no, I'm not changing profession just so I can use a Mac. I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC? That way you could use whichever one seems to be doing best whatever you want to do. I used to have a Linux machine and a Windows machine side by side on my computer desk. I used both of them. Right now I've got both Linux and Windows running on my PC, and I use both sides of the machine every day. When our computers get past the horse and buggy stage, we won't have to do all this switching around. Everybody's machine will do everything. All it takes is software. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think anybody's suggesting that you change careers just so you can use a Mac, but you could always run Windows via Parallels (http://www.parallels.com) and enjoy the best of both worlds (on a box that you did _not_ build yourself, I understand). CrossOver Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/), which is in Beta, lets Windows apps run under Mac OS X without having to run Windows itself. This probably wouldn't cover your need for .NET stuff, though. Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip. Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be useful? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. (And if one happens to live in one of those unfortunate societies whose gods rule that human sacrifice or whatever is good and necessary, well that's just too bad for you.) If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary. Real Me Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
JohnR said: What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier to use (and prettier!) than XP. And traditional Unix doesn't actually make a whole heap of sense. Why are there dozens of different configuration file formats? Why does no other Unix have things like launchd and lookupd but rather a rats nest of systems for starting processes and looking up directory data? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
JohnR said: Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip. Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be useful? I tried doing that at work but the video performance was annoyingly slow. We mostly use VMware for server applications. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:46PM, Richard Baker wrote: JohnR said: What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier to use (and prettier!) than XP. And traditional Unix doesn't actually make a whole heap of sense. Why are there dozens of different configuration file formats? Why does no other Unix have things like launchd and lookupd but rather a rats nest of systems for starting processes and looking up directory data? Because the original grew up piecemeal over three decades and Linux and the BSDs faithfully cloned every idiosyncrasy. OS X already breaks with that tradition with its Mach kernel, file bundles and other OS Xisms leaving Apple free to innovate further. I got Singh's _Mac OS X Internals_ the other week. 1641 pages of hard- bound fun to dip into! No library is complete without it Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Plenty which can be done. But someone who is dyslexic will allways make certain personally consistant spelling errors. That is not something which can be overcome, as stated. Does your mail client support the checking of spelling? Mail.app for OS X consistently underlines in red the spelling mistakes in those of your emails to which I reply. Rich Not every spellchecker has enough words in it. And telling the spellchecker to add a particular word doesn't help if you were misspelling it in the first place. So spellcheckers are of limited usefulness. Good tool, but it has to be used correctly, and a dyslexic who uses words not pre-loaded into the thing is going to have problems either way. [rant about the Orlando newspaper saved for a couple of weeks from now, if anyone asks then] Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anti-Matter Collisions
On 9/6/06, John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If our Milky Way were to collide with an anti-matter galaxy of equal mass, perhaps one that our astronomers had somehow overlooked, and tomorrow our whole galaxy were to cease to exist, what difference would it make? Is the universe benefited in any way from having the Milky Way as part of its mass? Or would the net loss amount to nothing of any importance? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l How does the universe gain or lose anything? Does the universe have a conscience that it would make it feel the difference? If we are that conscience, it would lose everything. If other consciences exist, it would lose something of debatable importance. If no conscience exist, who cares? Jean-Louis Chicken soup philosophy Couturier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:32 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. No, that's not the position. OK, it might actually be the practical position for some people, but it is real bad theology and has not been proposed in any serious work in Christianity that I'm aware of. I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. In this framework, God is associated with the basis of reality and truth. One way to look at it is to think of God as truth, righteousness, and love that possesses self awareness. Human words tend to picture God as a really really powerful being that is otherwise much like us. In particular, SciFi can often picture God as really a mundane being with tremendous power. But, the Christian concept of God transcends this. Thus, we see Jesus' command to his disciples boil down to love one another. We see Jesus saying I am the Way the Truth and the Light. The concept of God is not an uberhuman, but something that transcends all descriptionsthat we can only get a glance of. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
DanM said: I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have different positions on what those truths actually are. So far as I can tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the general sentiments of society) or an argument from what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:17 PM Tuesday 9/5/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Dave Land wrote: On Sep 1, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Dave Land wrote: Apparently, after screening and re-screening that couple of milliseconds of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl for hours on end, the geeks at the FCC have lost all sense of proportion. I know the feeling. Nipples -- especially if decorated with metallic stars -- apparently have that kind of power... If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better. Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it wouldn't be so insanely painful-looking. (You just have to watch out, the metallic paints clog the airbrush quicker than anything else.) I wonder how much practice I would need to gain adequate proficiency using my airbrush while standing in front of the full-length mirror in the bathroom? I have no idea. Dan made a pretty convincing leg-wound on himself, but doing your own leg is easier than doing your own nipple. I'd suggest wearing a dust mask if your nipple is being painted, whether you do it or someone else does it, unless you're outside in a well-ventilated area. (Doing it under an easy-up, I'd still want the mask, but more ventilation/room above than that, you're probably OK, unless you're surrounded on too many sides by tarp walls.) (At least I finally got an air compressor, so I don't have to use can after can of propellant stuff and get a nasty letter from Algore . . . .) Good for you. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Richard Baker wrote: JohnR said: What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier to use (and prettier!) than XP. And traditional Unix doesn't actually make a whole heap of sense. Why are there dozens of different configuration file formats? Why does no other Unix have things like launchd and lookupd but rather a rats nest of systems for starting processes and looking up directory data? Because they aren't slaves of Steve Jobs? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Richard Baker wrote: JohnR said: Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip. Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be useful? I tried doing that at work but the video performance was annoyingly slow. We mostly use VMware for server applications. I guess we just need faster hardware. Maybe that will come. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 4:13PM, Brother John wrote: Richard Baker wrote: If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions differ. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? Russian Doll Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works as well as a real one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 06/09/2006, at 3:51 PM, John W Redelfs wrote: I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC? iBook, Athlon 2200XP based PC currently running XP SP2, Claire's iMac. Had a dual-boot to Fedora Core 3 but I use the PC for media storage and Civ and Half-Life and I currently don't have the room to dual-boot. Use the Mac most of the time for most of the things I use a puter for. The only app I've not found a totally satisfactory option for on the Mac is personal finance. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall wrote: And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And does God's God's God's God have a God? GEB flashback Not necessarily what I needed today, but it's not entirely bad. Might even be calming, which I *could* use today. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:46, Richard Baker wrote: JohnR said: What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. That's called OS X. Oh, except for the fact that OS X is much easier to use (and prettier!) than XP. Except like Ubuntu, it can't run a vast range of apps, some not even with add-on software. And like XP you have to pay for it. So... Also, that ease of use thing is entirely relative - I haven't used a standard windows shell for years, and the OS X doesn't have anything remotely like... AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 6 Sep 2006 at 4:38, John W Redelfs wrote: On 9/4/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those people either buy from people like me (who pre-install the software), or they buy a brand..which allready has antivirus and firewalls loaded. I have not seen a PC sold in the last 4 years without that software...the ones loaded with infections are older than that, IME. Moreover, a 70-80 minute process lets me reinstall a fresh windows install from scratch without deleting any data. Infections are no problem on a PC, just reinstall the operating system. You have to do that every couple of months anyway just to replace the system files that are damaged every time it crashes and you have to do a cold reboot without shutting down properly. If you are backed up, no big deal. Heh. Getting on for 18 months on this Win 2k install, and the one before lasted over 2 years. Not usual. I'd suggest that if your windows is corrupting itself that frequently, it's a disk/disk controller issue. IME. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On Sep 6, 2006, at 5:51 AM, John W Redelfs wrote: I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC? That way you could use whichever one seems to be doing best whatever you want to do. Sure. I do it almost every day: I use an aging Powerbook G4 for 99% of my work) as well as lugging around a behemoth HP Compaq thing because of the scourge to Web Design and engineering productivity that is Internet Explorer. That is to say, I do all my design and engineering work on the Mac, then look at the dog-awful mess that IE makes of it on Windows and go back to the Mac to try to straighten it out. Also, my son plays lots of racing sims on the PC -- his latest addiction is TrackMania Sunrise. When our computers get past the horse and buggy stage, we won't have to do all this switching around. Everybody's machine will do everything. All it takes is software. As close as we are today is a PowerMac plus Parallels or CrossOver Mac. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shiny
Ooh! New 24 screen iMac with 1920 x 1200 resolution. Rattles piggybank Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:53 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: The Morality of Killing Babies DanM said: I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that exists apart from our perception. But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have different positions on what those truths actually are. Well, it certainly doesn't reduce ethics to something that is empirically verifiable, but I think that possibility just isn't there. I think Kant gave a good summation of the fundamental limits of pure reason in the introduction to his critique. Add this to our agreed upon conclusions on the nature and limitations of science and you will get what I consider an important part of the human condition: there is no empirical basis for ethics: ethics are faith basedno matter what that faith is in (one's own ability, a priori principles, religious dogma, the teachings of a master, etc). So far as I can tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the general sentiments of society) or an argument from what makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals, so that you can define what is good and what is evil. If the goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity, or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies is evil. But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anti-Matter Collisions
John W Redelfs wrote: If our Milky Way were to collide with an anti-matter galaxy of equal mass, perhaps one that our astronomers had somehow overlooked, and tomorrow our whole galaxy were to cease to exist, what difference would it make? To the Big U? Nothing. Is the universe benefited in any way from having the Milky Way as part of its mass? The mass of the Milky Way would not change. It would just become photons and some nasty stuff, and would blow in the wind. Or would the net loss amount to nothing of any importance? There would be no loss, because mass is conserved. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. No. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006, at 8:33PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. Baby munching God lovers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Loss (was: Religious freedom)
-- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Then, last Saturday, my Dad died at the age of 90...and I just got back from the funeral...and helping my mom. I'm sorry to hear of your loss. Even when we expect our loved ones to die soon, of whatever, it's hard when they go. Debbi Anticipating A Similar Outcome Soon Maru :( __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:31, Richard Baker wrote: Isn't might makes right basically the religious position? I believe Nope. At least, not for Jews. in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and those are evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are evil. (And Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary. Uh-huh. So what do you follow, the laws of the land? Oops, you know where THOSE are descended from, right... (especially the concept of Courts, for example..) Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Andrew said: Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or something else? No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me (although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument from the authority of one's imaginary friend. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Dan said: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things, even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning anything transcendental. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
William said: I got Singh's _Mac OS X Internals_ the other week. 1641 pages of hard-bound fun to dip into! That one's on my list of books I'd like to read in the near future. At the moment, I'm reading Scott's _Programming Language Pragmatics_, Hennessy and Patterson's _Computer Architecture_ and Bacon's _Concurrent Systems_ though. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. Hope that's satire. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? Look at people who tend to do those things today. Here's a hint: they mostly live in asia, tend to be extremely poor, and aren't particularly non-religious. Also look at the mid-east where certain religious factions take exquisite delight in blowing up busses filled with school children. However, in the modern west, doing such things tends to have a negative selective advantage. Male Lions, when they take over a pride, first kill every single Lion-cub from the previous alpha male. - If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in 43 had come immediately after the German Firm stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in 33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. --They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 --by Milton Mayer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 6 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Richard Baker wrote: Andrew said: Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the Land is the Law. So is that an argument from the authority of the Bible, an argument from the authority of the people who wrote Bible, an argument from the authority of the traditions of the ancient Jewish people or something else? The exact Hebrew phrase; Dina de-malchuta dina, is a paraphrase of several passages from the Bible by Samuel (3rd century Babylonia). It is accepted by basically every Jewish Rabbi outside the (tiny) Reconstructionism movement. It's also probably not a blanket cover and is linked to a whole host of other statements, but for Western counties you can assume that there are very few, if any, conflicts. I'd also note that that line is also inappropriately quoted quite frequently by the American burocracy... No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. Well, that sounds awfully like you're saying that these things are true because an all-powerful and ineffable God said so but that we shouldn't really look too closely into such matters. Which, to me (although presumably not to others), sounds awfully like an argument from the authority of one's imaginary friend. Nope. There is a clear answer - to try to attribute Human restrictions to G-d is to limit what he can do. Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote: On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary. Uh-huh. So what do you follow, the laws of the land? Oops, you know where THOSE are descended from, right... The babalonians and the pre-christ romans. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 06/09/2006, at 11:31 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human aspect to their G-d) but from our POV the question is meaningless in context. Yeah - as far as I see, modern moderate Judaism is basically humanism with a lot of ancient traditions built-in, sewn up in a cultural identity. Probably why I get on better with Jews than I do with most Xians. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
John W Redelfs wrote: And tomorrow, Google will be forced to turn over all our search history to George Bush just so he can make sure he approves of where we visit on the web. If you think Bush is an Evil Dictator, you should know that here in Brazil the Justice is trying to _close_ Google, because Google doesn't give the identities of its Orkut users. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Planet No More
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger rceeberger@ wrote: No, it won't - it would be _wrong_ to call it a planet! It should be called by something else, to stress the fact that it does not orbit a star. That is exactly what I think is ridiculous. That orbits are more important to the definition of planet than the properties of the body itself are. I don't know about that. For one thing, if one wanted to define planet simply on the basis of the properties of the body, I would think that one would develop separate terms for what are currently called terrestrial planets and jovian planets. Heh! Those are exactly the terms used. Where you been dude? So, I guess I don't understand your objection to the new definition of planet - other than semantics. Would you be happy if the IAU had adopted a definition of planet - as being an object of sufficient mass to become nearly spherical and a definition of central planet of planetary system as a planet that had cleared its orbit? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting specific weather incidents to climate change are very vulnerable to being counterpointed by the next unseasonable cold snap or snowstorm. For example, we're having a very quiet hurricane season so far this year - if this trend holds up, will that be any sort of argument that global warming is under control? And if not, then the same must be said for Katrina The effect warming has is on the intensity of the storms, not their frequency. While it can be argued that the recent pattern of intense storms is not a result of warming; that it is part of a natural cycle, the facts are that 1) warming increases ocean temperatures and 2) hurricanes are fueled by warm water. It really isn't much of a stretch to assume that warming _will_ cause higher intensity storms. I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of storms. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter four, perhaps you would like to do that one John? Clearly, I've had other distractions of my own, but I will definitely volunteer for Chapter 4, once Chapter 3 is off the books. I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse and civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily ask Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse? (You may be offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was integral to their collapse?) Another, much more logical question, would be: was memorial building integral to their collapse? In this case, one might connect America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders' proclivity for the same. But the Moai are essentially religious icons, are they not? The question points the the fact that precious resources were funneled in to the building of these statues at a time when it was critical that they conserve those resources. I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the building of moai could be a cultural phenomenon - sort of like how 19th and early-20th Century Americans built numerous obelisks that serve no religious purpose. Diamond at least obliquely suggests that the building of the moai might have been motivated as much by boredom as anything else. Diamond mentions that Easter Island's relative isolation precluded devoting surplus labor to warfare, exploration, and trading. You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why?So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future?O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
Ronn! wrote: Dave wrote: I think he means the nipple-like protrusion on the top of the rock. Yeah, I saw that, but, like you, I was looking for something else . . . I was struggling because I thought that the photo was entitled Kids and Grandkids, so I was looking for them in the picture. You guys are killin' me. 8^) There are two (count 'em) protrusions, separated by a bit of a cleavage and while the one on the right requires a bit of imagination the rock on the left is almost a perfect shape. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Wow. I do have to admire your chutzpah.. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. And the recent discovery of the Apophis asteroid, has suddenly made this possibility much more relevant than ever before. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:25:36 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of storms. I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181 and a relevant quote: Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios (Fig. 1). -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
JDG wrote: I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the building of moai could be a cultural phenomenon - sort of like how 19th and early-20th Century Americans built numerous obelisks that serve no religious purpose. http://islandheritage.org/eihistory.html They built houses and shrines, and carved enormous statues (called moai), similar to statues Polynesians made on Ra'ivavae and the Marquesas Islands. The function of the statues was to stand on an ahu (shrine) as representatives of sacred chiefs and gods. Ahu are an outgrowth of marae found in the Society Islands and elsewhere in Polynesia. These shrines followed a similar pattern: in the Society Islands, upright stone slabs stood for chiefs. When a chief died, his stone remained. It is a short step from this concept to the use of a statue to represent a sacred chief. Diamond at least obliquely suggests that the building of the moai might have been motivated as much by boredom as anything else. Diamond mentions that Easter Island's relative isolation precluded devoting surplus labor to warfare, exploration, and trading. You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why?So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future?O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? Indeed, it may have been that they started erecting more and larger statues as a result of their realizing that they had stranded themselves on that remote island. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
