Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 23 Oct 2006 19:21 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>>> >>>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>>> >>>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>>> >>>> >>>>Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the >>>>Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >>> >>>Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>>understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? >> >> >> >> Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >> prohibited, not permitted. > > Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted, > exactly as I wrote. You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not the same as "(not A) implies (not B)". Eric Lucas
From: unsettled on 23 Oct 2006 20:45 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:856de$453d290d$49ed52d$28493(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>>>> >>>>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the >>>>>Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >>>> >>>>Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>>>understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? >>> >>> >>> >>>Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >>>prohibited, not permitted. >> >>Precisely. So everything which is not prohibited is permitted, >>exactly as I wrote. > > > You need to brush up on your propositional logic. "A implies B" is not the > same as "(not A) implies (not B)". If you bothered to actually read the US Constitution, including Ammendments, you might actually understand and stop relying on what you think it might be about. It is online for free access. The Constitution is known world wide not as an enabling document, but a document which restricts the power that the government may exercise. The direction of the verbiage is not of concequence. Some of the Amendments are written in a positive context, for example Amendment 6, but what is clear in content, interpretation, and practice, is that it forbids prolonged incarceration and a bunch of other evils exercised by other nations. Therefore, all which is not prohibited is permitted. Congress must meet at least once a year. Congress shall not fail to meet at least once a year. Does one sentence carry a connotation different from the other? They are neither enabled by the constitution, nor prohibited by it, to meet more often that once on January 3rd (Ammendment XX.) I urge you to read _Sources of our Liberties_, American Bar Foundation (multiple dates/editions) before you pontificate thus. Available at amazon.com starting (used) at $5.80. Over the years I've purchased a number of copies and donated them to nearby public libraries. The needs of "better educated" people represented by posters in this forum demonstrates the prevalent levels of misunderstanding how basic government works and what the regulations are and what they mean sugegsts the book should become required reading before allowing you to vote. Kirwan's rambling overlong post on the subject misses the mark throughout. He does no better in the rest of his posts today. His wordiness does nothing to offset his essential ignorance. In fact, his sort resorts to such wordiness because they're trying to convince themselves.
From: John Fields on 23 Oct 2006 21:06 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:42:02 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:57:34 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:9d61d$453cfc77$49ecff9$27195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> news:cf679$453cf606$49ecff9$26900(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ehi3q8$8qk_004(a)s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ehafo7$ot9$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ehab1j$8qk_001(a)s949.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In the US, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Except start wars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>When the nation is threatened, yes. It's in our Constitution. >>>>>> >>>>>>And is it unconstitutional to do so when we're not threatened? >>>>> >>>>>In our system, anything not prohibited is permitted. >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh, sorry, no...the Constitution *specifically* limits the powers of the >>>> Federal government to those listed in the Constitution. >>> >>> Did you not read what I just wrote? Is your brain incapable of >>> understanding that "specifically limits" is a prohibition? >> >> >>Uh, no..."specifically limits" says what they can do. Anything else is >>prohibited, not permitted. > >That about sums my grasp of it. > >The radical idea debated prior to approving our US Constitution (as >documented in letters to the New York Journal, the Federalist Papers, >personal letters, the Virgina legislature debates in 1787, and so on), >was the idea of from where rights themselves emanate. I think I've >read published letters in the New York Journal dating back as far as >about 1755 on that topic. The conclusion of those writing the US >Constitution and, where it really counts, of those signing it into >effect is that they emanate from the individual, not from government >or from society, and that government operates by the consent of >individuals who grant those rights they deem necessary and which >persist only for so long as they choose to continue granting them. > >You can see this kind of thinking in most of what survives today as >the body of materials elaborating the underlying intent of the >Constitution. > >Some don't recall today that Hamilton had argued fiercely at the time >against the Bill of Rights, something that Jefferson felt was very >important to include. Hamilton's argument, if put in a nutshell, >claimed that if *any* specific guarantees about rights were written >down, that instead of being a useful protection against the more >frightening forms of state power and coersion, it would instead >eventually be seen as the *ONLY* rights anyone had. That later >generations would imagine (and therefore accept a yoke being placed >around their necks) these rights were the only ones and thus the Bill >of Rights would become the prison bars of our own jailing -- that >government would then be able to claim for itself, without much >resistance, everything else. > >His argument was so profoundly expressed and so thoroughly agreed to >that they decided to actually write it in as one of the Bill of Rights >-- namely, the 9th Amendment (known as "The Hamilton Amendment".) > >His argument went something like this: It's like coming to a new, >vacant land and staking out your homestead. You build a nice little >fence around it and put in a garden there. Someone new arrives and >sees your fence and naturally assumes that what isn't fenced, must be >available to newcomers or anyone else. Of course, having lived there >yourself for decades beforehand, you might think otherwise. But the >fence has become the only obvious line of demarcation. So the >assumptions others make may materially operate to make you seriously >regret having put up a fence at all. You might have been better off >simply not having one. > >Hamilton's opposition argued that there were some individual rights >that were so important and so vital that they simply had to have >explicit expression. Kind of like, "Governments may transgress rights >now and then, but if they even come close to transgressing these you >know you are in very deep trouble already and should consider >abolishing what's there and finding another way." > >Hamilton, though, felt very strongly that putting down just a few >rights would then imply that others didn't also exist and that later >generations would lose sight of the agreed upon understanding that all >rights emanate from the individual and that society and governments >have NO RIGHTS except those ceded by individuals, for such time as >they continue to perceive that the common benefits outweigh the cost >of ceding them to government. > >--- > >There is no legitimate power of a government or a king or anyone else >to either grant rights or to take them away. Nothing inherently makes >anyone man or women the possessor of individual rights, who can hand >them out or withhold them as they please. We don't need a contract >from someone to have rights. And no one else owns that contract that >they can rescind at their will. These rights are "inalienable," as >the wording goes -- inherently within each of us, as individuals. They >flow out of us as actors in the world. > >This starting point was debated over a period of decades, well before >the revolution started or the US Constitution was eventually created, >debated, and then signed. By the time it was signed, there was almost >no material argument here. > >From this founding assumption, it followed that governments are >_granted_ rights "by the people" for the purposes of mutual safety and >their pursuit of happiness. The idea is actually pretty simple and >requires no belief in a god, no acceptance of the rights of a king, >etc. Instead, we grant our government certain rights, for example the >right to accumulate police powers needed to enforce a law against >murder, because we jointly feel that there is an overwhelming social >need that we can agree on. The benefits of ceding these rights to >government's good purposes outweighs the loss we suffer as individual >acto
From: John Larkin on 23 Oct 2006 22:29 On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:11:09 -0500, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> In article <184nj2pmmiu4gtl0vga9s0c4lvonj89lhi(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:55:27 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>If you're going to label evolution as "just a belief", then you had better >>>>be prepared to apply that appellation to *all* of the observational >>>>sciences, since evolution is one of the best supported ideas in the history >>>>of science. >>> >>>It is not. >> >> >> Yes it is. It the cornerstone for biology, in the way atoms are for >> chemistry. >> >> >>>The observational evidence for big evolutionary jumps, and >>>especially for the creation of life, is spotty or non-existant. >> >> >> OK, lie #1 >> >> >>>There >>>is no demonstrably accurate mathematical model for evolution. >> >> >> Lie #2 >> >> >>>Nobody >>>actually understands how DNA works. >> >> >> We don't understand quantum theory either, but the sun shines and your >> computer works. >> >> >>>Evolution, and especially its >>>mechanisms, is nowhere near being good science; it may be some day, >>>but not yet. >> >> >> You are lying. >> >> >>>If you use "best supported" to mean "popular", then I guess you're >>>right. >>> >>>John >>> >>> >> >> Idiot. > > >Whether or not models are correct is not important to us. >What is important that they provide accurately predictive >tools for us to use. Does the science of evolution provide any accurately predictive tools? Simple cases, like bacterial drug or temperature resistance, are somewhat predictable and can be verified by experiment. But how about macro things, like the creation of new genera and orders? Are past creations at this level "predictable" after the fact? I wonder if any really new life forms are evolving now, right under our eyes. John
From: Robert Latest on 24 Oct 2006 03:13
["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:15:05 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in Msg. <vb4qj29r3tpr4ctnhbffuumsdgpj704mf8(a)4ax.com> > There's all sorts of interesting stuff. Some people are born with six > fully functional fingers on each hand. So "finger" must be some sort > of parameterized macro, and "mirror image" must be an operation, and > there must be some sort of installation crew that hooks everything up > so that it all works. You should read the essays by Steven Jay Gould. You'll enjoy them. robert |