Artful Dodger:

> Likely the CIA has an insider working for Google. Or Google is a CIA front.

Reputedly, the two main founders of Google used to be NSA employees. Even if they were not, it is in Google's best interests to collaborate with intelligence services to stop possible threats. Can you imagine what it would do to the company if somebody said "Google could have warned everyone because they had network access to the information necessary to prevent this disaster"?

With respect to semi-automatic assault rifles, it is true that psychopaths and insane morons will use them to kill people, but then somebody who is disturbed will kill with or without assault rifles. The real problems is the impact of the attack. I am sure that Japan has just as much violent crime as the USA, the difference is that because guns are illegal in Japan, the death rate is a lot lower.

Three months of gun violence in the USA cause more death than the 9-11 attack did. At the current rates of killing, gun violence in the USA causes about 900 dead people per month, while sectarian violence in Iraq caused about 600 to 1000 dead per month (as of 2008, these days it is lower). Americans don't see it, but more Americans are being killed every month in the USA than Iraqis or Afghans in their respective countries. Even Mexico and Colombia with the drug-driven violence do not have the same rate of killing.

The big question is: is the killing due to easy access to guns or due to some other cultural factors? I think that access to guns is only a small part of the problem. There are economic issues, drug-trade issues, and a culture that has promoted violence as a form of entertainment. I think that if politicians really cared about the problem, not only would they tackle gun control, but they would also curb violent television and video games. Sadly, when they had the chance both democrats and republicans refused to do anything about violent content geared towards children because after all "the parents must choose for their children", but what if the parents have been desensitized to violence too? Then there is the fact that half of the violent military-style games out there have been funded by the Pentagon as a means to "train" America's future patriots and to entice young people to enlist. If the government itself is promoting violence, what good will gun control do?

Artful Dodger: I know it's people that pull the trigger, but when you allow a person to order 1000's of rounds at one time... ... .. get my drift? Little red light saying "why does one man need so much ammo?" flashing??

We had a full no knives or sharp items on the streets allowed. Automatic arrest for all juvi's and 99% chance of a custodial sentence... it worked. As weapons are not the norm of this country.... it is the norm that Americans are armed, so it's the norm that a criminal will arm themselves... catch 22 situation.

"It is scary that youtube has things like recipes for massive destruction of human life! But I'll bet the posters and the subscribers are being watched by the CIA."

Noooooo. When a guy is making rocket candy for his rockets as a fun hobby.. no harm. Thermite.. can be handy... plasticated it's a cheap metal cutter. I was shocked, but could see that many normal uses cannot be censored just because this world has nut jobs.

Mentos and coke.. that's a funny one!!

(V): There are many gun types that are legal and many other that are not. Military type assault (automatic) are not. The Government did some studies (back in the Clinton days) and found that the gun bans (instituted by Clinton and Janet Reno) had no noticeable effect on crime/murder/killings. Guns aren't the problem. It's the heart of man that's the problem.

It is scary that youtube has things like recipes for massive destruction of human life! But I'll bet the posters and the subscribers are being watched by the CIA. Likely the CIA has an insider working for Google. Or Google is a CIA front.

Artful Dodger: ... Thank God for that. Some nutty Americans armed with a cruise would be a very bad idea.

... but they could afford and make themselves unguided or simple guided rockets/missiles (guided as in a simple gyroscopic guidance). Youtube basically has all the info, including how to make solid fuel.

... I know this, I have seen this. Napalm, thermite recipes all on youtube!!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/asa-shw012413.php

(V): most peeps couldn't afford one let alone know how to use it.

rod03801: ... a dictator.... I think you use that label too loosely. You don't see tanks on the street or jets bombing US citizens like in Syria.

No mass executions, American troops going around *&!%@? and pillaging like in the days of old against the American Indians.

... Yes, at that time the US government was an invader, just like we were in Australia.

"They are WELCOME to their silly laws"

Our silly laws include that gun owners are screened to stop probable maniacs going on a rampage... it's not perfect, but our gun crime death rate is very low. Imagine that...

It's nice that our schools don't need armed police or guards to protect the kids. Guns being more important than them it seems.

Artful Dodger: That's not true. The CIA has backed some really nasty bar stewards in the past, replaced democratically elected governments and all sorts of bad crap.

How did Al Qaeda get good at hijacking planes.... because they were trained to bring down soviet planes, the Taliban were trained to avoid Soviet troops, how to build IED's, etc.

I wonder how Iran would be today if the Oil companies hadn't got our governments put a puppet in place!

Artful Dodger: So it's ok for someone to own a cruise missile or two?

rod03801: Gun laws are basically meaningless. And gun free zones a joke. Like the mass murderer sees the "gun free zone" sign and says, "Crap! I can't bring my guns in there!"

Artful Dodger: So many don't seem to get that. I'm sick of all these talking points. The real intent was to be able to stand up to tyranny. If we keep having wannabe dictators, who have NO regard for our constitution, like Obama, we may NEED to be able to stand up against them.
And I'll never understand why they don't get that criminals DONT care which guns are against the law. The only people they are trying to punish are the law abiding people who have THE RIGHT to have what they want.
And some don't seem to get that we aren't under their reign still, thank goodness. They are WELCOME to their silly laws

(V): Well the CIA only favors terrorists that are less bad than the really bad terrorists. I think they hope the not-so-bad terrorists will kill the really-bad terrorists (and then the CIA will go after the no-so-bad terrorists). Or something like that.

(V): I don't think they envisioned any gun type. They envisioned the freedom to possess arms. It's the concept they stood for. The type of gun is immaterial. (also bats and nunchucks)

Artful Dodger: ....... the CIA!!??!! I though they'd be more discreet these days. ;P

Übergeek 바둑이: So has Sarah Palin.

Artful Dodger: Yep... I don't think 30 round shotgun magazines, attached to automatic shotguns were envisioned when the constitution was written. Pistols and bolt action rifles being more in line with the weaponry of that era.

Übergeek 바둑이: Fine, he probably did. But Al Gore was the darling of the Global Warming movement and in the end, he refused to sell his network to Glen Beck but was ok with an organization that favors the terrorists AND is hugely connected to oil money. So much for Al Gore's sincerity. It's his own Halliburton.

The Col: The political elite, on both sides, are worthless and need to be thrown out. Career politicians are bums and don't look out for the folks first.

(V): Those muskets are still around but they're not that effective unless you're a fast reloader and you're faithful at keeping your powder dry.

(V):

> "See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So did Dick Cheney!

Artful Dodger: It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes"

And it's a huge red flag when the opposition stands to gain in the reverse.The pro and con to the discussion is cut right along party lines, which means both sides have supporters who blindly support each side with no clue of reality.So the tie breaker logically goes to informed sources, and they support the global warming/climate change theory by a landslide

Artful Dodger: We do and we don't. When I see people being able to build hydrogen gas extractors for their cars from 'bits and pieces', or batteries made from cow dung....

"See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So has Tony Blair, it seems big politicians make more out of power then in!!

As to gun control.... does that mean the US will go back to using muskets and other single fire weapons as used in 1791?

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! I actually agree with you. But the models that scientists used to predict the "effects of global warming" haven't come true. My position is that we have no global warming and certainly it's not man made. We do have climate change but we can call that climate fluctuations or climate cycles and be just as accurate.

Pollution is another matter all together. We should be good stewards of the earth. But we shouldn't go over board and stop using fossil fuels altogether. We need to use fuels responsibly. If we had reliable green energy that was cost efficient (so far we don't) then we can move in that direction. Until then we need to use the technology we do have.

It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes. Carbon credits, green dollar spending, and global warming research, not to mention the green energy investments, all stand to make a bundle if global warming policies move forward. See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies. And in the end, he sold out to big oil anyway.

There is nothing wrong with responsible use of coal, oil, or gas. And there is no green energy technology that can supply a huge community with all their energy needs. Until there is, we have to continue to use what is available (and there is lots of it).

Artful Dodger:

Of course, you realize that global warming is not about daily or seasonal weather events, but rather about the long-term averages of atmospheric temperatures. This winter is actually not that cold, at least not here where the temperature is almost 20 degrees higher than usual. That is not what global warming is about. It is about an increase of almost 2 degrees in average atmospheric temperatures over the last 100 years and the fact that those increases in temperature coincide with the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale. Are fossil fuels to blame for global warming? Only if one sees a correlation between burning of fossil fuels and the increase in atmospheric long-term averages since the start of the industrial revolution. Just because winter is cold it does not mean that all that carbon dioxide has no effect on the atmosphere. The question is not whether this winter is cold or not, but rather whether average winter temperatures have increased in the last 200 years.

Of course, if global warming does not exist, then it is ok to keep burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. After all, car and factory exhaust fumes are really harmless!

Are you freezing? Join the crowd. Arctic air is sweeping across Canada. Snow and ice are wreaking havoc on Britain. Russians are dying from the cold. And Germans are sneaking into forests to cut down trees because their fuel bills are so high.

Hey! Whatever happened to global warming?

That’s a naive question, of course. Everybody knows there’s little or no connection between daily weather events and climate change (except when there’s a heat wave, a hurricane or some other natural disaster, in which case global warming is invariably to blame). Experts will tell you that our bitter winter weather proves nothing about climate change – that the world is still warming up at an alarming rate.

Well, maybe not so alarming. Global temperatures have now held steady for 16 years. They levelled off around 1997........

read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whatever-happened-to-global-warming/article7725145/

rod03801: Intentions... Well, that says it all.

As I said..... show.

(V): Show? Sorry, but it was INTENDED that the states have more power than the federal govt.

David Cameron is showing signs that he is not confident that he'll(his party) is capable of winning at the next election.

The conservative leader has stated "he is commitment to hold a referendum on the UK's future in Europe if he wins the next election." .... The UKIP party is stealing votes over the UK's involvement in the EU and our treaties as such. Mainly because the conservatives and labour parties were not willing to do anything, it being good jobs for the boys as EMP's.

It's like the US states arguing with da feds. Mostly just for show.

(V):

Blimey... allotment wars... where sabotage, kidnapping, feuds and midnight breaking in of sheds so 'tramps' can have a nice snooze on the sofa with scented candles.

ok.. the kidnapping was a lock in so the 'committee' could get there way and evict a plot holder as he had questioned their authority and won.

... The guys plot was perfect for pumpkins.. 1st place being worth more than £1.50!!

(V): I'll be there in 30 hours. Save me some!

Iamon lyme: We'd run out of room. People would get bored.. dangerous combination.

Artful Dodger: Or they could be using donkey meat. It appears many European salamis/sausages may contain donkey... ... ... I'm doing a chicken stew today. Starting from a whole fresh chicken being de-boned and cut up by myself.

.... Our local butchers trade is picking up!! ;P

Iamon lyme: Not so nice towards the end period.



"I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy."

No... If it was bigger then it would be a factor. Jupiter is more relevant I feel in it's cleansing ability.

"If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?"

.... Mars is a nearly planet. From what I'm seeing now it is very probable it did have life. But with no magnetic field the sun killed it. They say an object like our moon did circle Mars but it appears to have crashed into the planet, when it was there.. Mars could have started to form organic life.

"But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known."

PR stunt.. like putting a record on the Voyagers.

"Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials. In fact, the stars of M13, that the message was aimed at, will no longer be in that location when the message arrives.[1] According to the Cornell News press release of November 12, 1999, the real purpose of the message was not to make contact, but to demonstrate the capabilities of newly installed equipment."

Iamon lyme: Awww drat! I did it again! I'm getting ahead of myself... The metal content has nothing to do with lifespan, it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years, burning hydrogen steadily on its main sequence... so in this case it IS size that matters.

"Metal" content was about another point I wanted to make, how not just any old star or star system is able to have life just because a star is the right size or has the right luminosity. Drake and Sagan beamed a message to a large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. The theory was because there are lots of stars in that region there was a higher probability of communicating with intelligent life.

Fat chance of that happening, since globular clusters are the worst places to go looking for life. They are among the most ancient things in the universe, which means their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements... they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements are needed for building terrestrial planets. In globular clusters you are more likely to find only dust or grains or maybe boulders, but nothing like an Earth type planet that can serve as a platform for life to exist (much less develop). But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known.

Artful Dodger: I think that was the point of not allowing us to live forever. If not for death we could have ended up looking like puddles of goo, with two eyeballs looking up and pleading with God to kill us.

(V): I would not love it if my Big Mac was named after some horse! If McDs served horse meat and it was discovered, Burger King stock would rise. Unless they used some of the Old Grey Mare too.

I suppose if I were hungry enough though I'd even eat a Rocky Mountain oyster!

(V): "No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones."

Size isn't the only factor. What I said was most suns the size of ours burn out more quickly because of stellar content. We have a very metal rich sun compared to most others of the SAME size. I wasn't comparing our sun to larger or smaller ones. And BTW, I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy.


"The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!"

Well no kidding! And probably more out of date when I was a kid than for you, but I'm not talking about what we were taught as kids.


And I wasn't talking about wild rumors of life on the moon either. I was referring to speculation among scientists (yes, actual scientists) about life possibly existing on the moon based on observations of the lunar surface indicating the presence of water. If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?

Iamon lyme: All I know is I hope I don't experience infinite regression. But I think I'm on my way to a finite one.

Iamon lyme: Do not read anything by Origen then. lol

Could be a wall event, where you need to bang your head against one!! :))

Artful Dodger: Make a good stew. I'm waiting to hear if McD's get caught up in this mess. They do state that they get much of their beef from Ireland. :P

Iamon lyme: Not sure...That's kinda getting into high end ideas of singularities and pure energy.. not even the scientists are sure at this level, as it is the realm of quantum events.

"unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion"."

There... time. At the starting point.. what was time? Did it exist as we know it??

"As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present."

No. Wild Victorian rumours of Men in the Moon, Mutants on Venus, etc.. were just wild rumours. I'm talking now. In the last 20-30 years, and so much definite proof in the last 0-5 thanks to the likes of Kepler and new techniques in allowing for atmospheric disruption for ground based telescopes.

"The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones."

I know... it was that variation that created the first stars. The recent analysis shows that galaxies themselves seem to clump in ribbons and clusters through out the universe.

"And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures"

And carbon is produced alot by stars as they start dying.... .... 13 billion years.....

"And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will.."

No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones.

Dude... you need to take a look at some current youtube vids on physics and particularly stellar physics. The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!

Artful Dodger: "I could have saved Ari a lot of time and thought energy!"

Yeah, but if he hadn't spent all that time and thought energy he would have been out of a job. Besides, if centuries of analysis eventually lead back to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", then it's not really a waste of time or energy. If faith is based on evidence and logic then it can't be called "blind" faith.

I wasted some time and energy because I assumed an infinite regression meant traversing the infinite. It was a bone head mistake, but at least I figured out what Ari was actually talking about... well, maybe I figured it out. I think he was saying an infinite regression 'of power' is impossible, so an unmoved mover is needed to keep the motion ball rolling.

Iamon lyme: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

done

there, that was easy. I could have saved Ari a lot of time and though energy!

Artful Dodger: "and I wonder who geared it?"

These debates always seem to come back to the same question: Is it a "who done it" or a "what done it". Aristotles unmoved mover almost appears to be an afterthought, a sort of work around for overcoming infinite regress. But I don't think that is what Aristotle had in mind. I think the unmoved mover was something to overcome the problem with entropy, because that's all it really does. It can't make an infinite number of past events go away after asserting motion has always existed.


I blew out a brain cell last night, so am waiting for a replacement... the other one still works but I don't want to overtax it.

(V): Yeah, I like chicken. Besides they poop everywhere and deserve to be eaten. For that matter, I should eat my dogs then.

Artful Dodger: We eat other farm yard animals, and they are more that than pets. Dog though is a step too far.... alot of work butchering for such a small return!! ;P

Iamon lyme: and I wonder who geared it?

(V): "Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare."

Theories previously held by who? Scientists in the past believed there might have been life on the moon, based on observations made from looking through telescopes. As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present.

"The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence."

The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones. We just happen to live in a system that has the full range of essential elements. And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures (including the DNA package) in cells. So you can't just go anywhere in the universe that has enough water and hope to find lots and lots of inhabitable planets. It's much more complicated than that. And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will... because our sun has just the right mix of materials to keep it going for more than 2 or 3 billion years.