Death_By_Pod

No, no I'm not. There have been allegations from (former/current) employers previous to the patriot act, where they describe signals being intercepted nationally and unlawfully. What is the difference between spying internationally and domestically, your enemies don't always live abroad. Like I said before there is nothing stopping you getting information about people in your country from spy stations in other countries. http://cryptome.org/echelon-baby.htm Here is an interview with a former employee who recounts spying on a senator; this took place in 1977 a far cry from 2001.[/url]

They have been tapping phones for decades; I really don't know what the fuss is all about. It was originally for tapping into communist's conversations, now they do it for terrorists. In fact there is a group of countries that form a large spying network, Which countries like America and UK are apart of. What is stopping the UK from spying on America and America from spying on the UK and trading their information? This is perfectly legal and is one way they get around the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâno spying on citizensÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ rule. Btw, these wiretaps are not new; they just have simply been recently brought to light by mass media. Underground media has know about them for at least 2 years now. You know al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, maybe the related groups he is talking about is *gasp* other terrorist organisations? I don't know what Underground media youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re talking about but they have known about this for well over two years, at least a decade. The name of NSA branch in the game Splinter Cell is a reference to the spy organization IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m talking about, and that game is 4 years old.

So they arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t counting related deaths? In that case cigarettes haven't directly caused deaths either. Stating this fact is a smokescreen, every death in the world can be related to some sort of cause. Would it surprise you that 87% of American Lung Cancer patients smoke? This is from a anti ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâwar on drugsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ groupÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s website ([link]http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/[/link]):

Why on earth was GTA 3 or Halo on that list (not to mention things like Phatasy star online, Tetris world, Metal gear solid, gran tourismo) I really don't think any of these games are GREAT games, sure they might be the most INFLUENTIAL but this article is on the GREATEST games of all time.

Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism. Sorry, I don't believe in moral relativism. Ditto that!^ Moral relativism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes - thats why its ok!" Moral absolutism is for me just a way to try to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. "Hey! This isnt bad in my eyes ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ God (oh wait, the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmoral designerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢) said it was Ok!" Moral relativism is all about taking responsibility since you have nothing to fall back upon; all your actions are done according to your personal opinion and if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong in the eyes of everyone else, you can only blame yourself. Moral absolutism on the other hand is all about shifting responsibility away from the person and on to the person who created the morals (god, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâunspoken lawÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, teapot orbiting the sun etc.); how on earth is that taking responsibility? Who created the moral designer and why did it make the choices we live by or more simply why did the moral designer exist in the first place, there is no reason to place moral codes upon us. Moral absolutism is relativismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s equivalent of intelligent design (compared to Evolution). Moral absolutism seems like a throw back to days when things where deterministic and everything was made for a reason, when clearly a lot of things we see in the universe are not made for a specific reason. Is it really that hard to see that morals are shaped by your parents and the environment? How about cases where children who were abandoned in the wild and took up animal behaviors or German youth that were brought up to believe that Jewish people were sub-human. They never got the chance to learn what was ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâtruly rightÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; to them they are only mimicking the right thing to do from others. Where do absolute morals factor into cases like these, would someone who was only brought up in a prison cell understand anything other then the approximate time food enters their cell? How can the notion of moral absolutism are put forth when there are as many grey scenarios then black/white scenarios. To put it plainly, it insufficiently describes reality (the world is full of grey scenarios) so it canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly be the correct model for human morals. Swear words are a good example of relativism since words are neither intrinsically good nor bad but are shaped by their context. The S swear word wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have been bad if it werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an acronym associated with slavery, the slang for black people wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be bad either if it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t originally a derogatory word for black people, and so forth. These words werenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t good from the dawn of time and they neither were bad from the dawn of time, they were shaped through the social consciousness. If enough people took offense to a certain word and told their kids to take offense to that word (effectively spreading the undesirability of the word), eventually you have words that are offensive only because your parents told you they were offensive. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty hard to shake off words from being offensive when they have such momentum behind them. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a real shame when people only take offense to things because that what there were taught, rather then thinking about why they take offense to it.

I'm probably going to be the only one here that says it; you don't necessarily have to own a car. I live in a metro area and can get pretty much anywhere with public transport (I've only driven about 15 minutes and got bored with it). Before deciding to get a car weigh your needs for it, since maintenance (petrol, 3rd party insurance, yearly registration and repairs) could add up to huge amounts quickly (especially for old cars). As a bonus, the few times you do need to walk somewhere, (like your friend lives on a cliff 40 minutes away from the train station) you can get some good exercise without sacrificing too much out of your schedule. If I were given the choice in my situation it would definitely be the Xbox 360.

*speachless* Tapestry Media has nothing compared to its rival HVD, HVD's store 3.9TB which is over double Tapestry. Also itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s worth mentioning that Tapestries cd-drive (Not a burner) costs $15000 and the cd's cost $120, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a long way until they become affordable and burnable.

Einstein was a pantheist; he believed that the universe was God. So his babbling about understanding God was really just him wanting to understand the laws of the universe. Nice try taking famous people's quotes out of context.

If you want to be technical, Newton's (and EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) gravitation is in fact theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is the law contained inside the theory. Do you really think all the work Newton presented could be contained in one single law? Sure you get the basic idea but you then miss out on all the small details such as the force having to be communicated instantly, gravity of a single body, the 3 dimensional vector form of gravity etc. How about his reservation about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwhat gravity isÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Just have to point this out: You can't prove a law more then you can prove a theory. They are the same thing, both have good evidence for being true but there is no way something can be a 'law' (in the legal sense) only that appears to be a law. Laws have been disproved in the past (like the law of the conservation of energy) so instead of using strong words such as law we now use softer words like theory but both historically mean the same thing in the scientific community.

Um... Energy can be created and destroyed... Quantum Physics explains how. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it so that matter is being created and destroyed all the time. If you want to be technical, energy fluctuation is a quantum effect not a macro effect. Sure energy can be created and destroyed by it doesn't happen in our every day experience (thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålaw of the conservation of energyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Although what you quoted doesn't have anything directly to do with religion, I believe physics on the other hand does have an important role with religion. Not only can it give insight into theistic god but it also compliments naturalistic pantheism (God is everywhere/everything/reality). Some of the most famous physicists are pantheists such as Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan, to me there seems to be some sort of intrinsic connection between religion and physics. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why you see things such as the big bang comes up in discussion and many religiously vocal physicists.

Umm, Black holes can be 'seen', they can't be seen with light by they do produce other noticeable effects such as high frequency emission, relativistic jets and abnormal periodic motion of satellites. The fact that you can't see a black hole is a consequence of relativity but that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean that it doesn't 'communicate' information to us. http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php Is a webpage which provides evidence (including a movie detailing star orbits) that Sagittarius A* is a super massive black hole sitting in the centre of our galaxy. This kind of stuff isn't science fiction; they have been studied for years the animation starts with observations from 1992.

I like how people complain about animals that get skinned alive but no one cares about the people who work under poor conditions to make your Nike shoes in places such as China. It goes to show how some people have more compassion over a furry creature then a fellow human being.

Took 25 Questions to get my answer of a bridge, not bad for a.i. You can usually beat these things pretty easily if you think of something common yet uncommonly thought about, like a bridge.

Civilizations 4 without a doubt, pretty much everything else this year have consisted of bland sequels and generic shooters. Hopefully next year will be better with releases such as Morrowind Oblivion and Gears of War however I won't get my hopes up.

theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷oÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÃÆÃâÃâîr) n. pl. theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷oÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ries 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Very first entry on dictionary.com (you could use any other dictionary and get a similar result), however intelligent design supports use this definition: 6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. You tell me which you think is used to describe a scientific theory? The definition of 1. is worded in a very scientific way, wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t that suggest that it would be used to describe the theory of evolution or the theory of gravitation or germ theory? It's pretty funny that you don't see intelligent design labelled as the theory of intelligent design because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even fit the criteria of 1. Not like they would want to anyway with the stigma associated with that word. This pretty much sums it up for me; they are trying to teach something that isn't science in a science classroom to give it some credibility.

Yeah calculating the actual hit amount depends on a lot of things, I was using a street amount (0.2g - 1g) rather then calculating from pure heroin prior to cutting. Taking into consideration that this probably isn't street heroin your answer would be a closer approximation. However the point remains there is no evidence that heroin destroys the number of lives people are claiming (saying that every bit of heroin sold will be used to over dose is just a scaremongering).

Umm where do you get figures of 25,000 hits? For 400gm it would be closer to 2000 hits using the math's that one hit is 0.2gm (pretty standard weight) so 400/0.2 (or more simply 400*5) would come to a figure of 2000. Now for the question of how many lives he could ruin (in this case the number of deaths) the answer would be, not many. Considering that Heroin Addicts are normalised to the drug (have a higher tolerance) they would need plenty of hits at once for a chance of overdose, I would estimate the possible death total at about a hundred or so if every person brought enough hits and all attempt to overdose (which would be pretty much impossible). More people die from car accidents then overdoses should we ban the use of cars, or how about we ban fat because it causes heart attacks?

Nice racist remark there claiming S.E. Asia is backwards, considering that about half of the world have death sentencing laws (including The United States Of America) that remark is completely out of line. Yet on the other hand people cheer at the outcome of Bali bombers getting the death penalty, it really shows how backwards and racist some Australians really are. You should learn to respect the laws of countries you visit no matter how wacky they are, without law these countries would cease to exist (formally) and its inhabitants would live in a state of anarchism. The punishment fits the crime due to the very definition of the countries law. There is no way around this argument unless you believe in moral absolutism but then you would have to deal with the fact that roughly half of the countries in the world have the death penalty (which implies there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an absolute moral standing on the issue). If the punishment was so horrible that even the countries citizens couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t support it then the citizens should demonstrate and attempt to oust the government. Even with their strict laws a sufficient numbers of protesters could topple the government; after all soldiers wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to shoot Singaporean civilians even if ordered, soldiers are people too. Even though I only believe in capital punishment when rehabilitation is beyond hope (the original purpose of capital punishment), however I also believe you have got to respect the laws of the country. If you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t move to a country of like minded people who donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have capital punishment laws, simple.

Yes but when Behe's books replaced the words creationism with intelligent design and creationist with intelligent design proponent shows his intentions. The fact the word creationism appeared in any form of his writing shows something fishy going on and the words are interchangeable in Behe's mind. Here is an article http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061 you can find more info and the transcript by googling.

Wow, just wow. You say scientists are ignorant because of entropy yet you incorrectly apply it to evolution and the Earth. The Earth (and therefore Evolution) is not in a closed system, we get energy from the sun which replenishes us to live another day. It is an open system so does not apply to the rule of going towards chaos. Global warming would be a smack in the face of entropy because we are retaining more heat and hence have an increase in average temperature. Whereas Entropy states things tend towards a chaotic environment so all of the Earths energy should radiate out and disappear, but itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not due to the sun keeping it nice and warm. It seems like another religious pundit choose to ignore the inconvenient facts when attempting to bolster the case of "us and that's it!" :wink: Well the 3 most vocal groups that openly support intelligent design believe in: - A Christian God (Some Christians) - Aliens [uFOÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s] (The RaelianÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s, the guys who claim to have cloned a human. Visit http://www.rael.org for more info) - A Giant Spaghetti Monster (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://www.venganza.org) It sure doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help to have the most vocal supports and writers of I.D. books such as Michael Behe to openly admit he believes the intelligent designer to be a Christian God. It also doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help to have intelligent design be a part of the wedge strategy, a Christian attempt to get rid of science and replace it with Christian morals (by using intelligent design to fight scientific theories with Christian ones) http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html. Intelligent design sure is secular (where are the other major religions who have groups that support intelligent design?) :roll: It would be a ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwitch huntÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

You can't describe Materialistic behaviour with theistic belief. The fact that flood was physical means that it can be explained as some sort of physical phenomena so was hasn't any scientifically verifiable explanation been put forth for testing? I don't know but an appeal to the supernatural isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t an argument for a materialistic phenomena; I don't think you would be to happy If I explained that god created us, god created the sun and god created every atom and god holds in place and god is lightning etc. basically using god as a scape goat for everything, so why does it apply in special cases such as miracles? It seems like science doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to account for anything when we have god on our side.

I don't know but the only "pro evolutionist" thing I was defending was the definition of theory in the scientific context. Look at the dictionary you will see something similar to the following (was taken from dictionary.com): 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. I don't know about you but it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mention that scientific theories are guesses anywhere; actually to the contrary scientific theories actually explain things. Some people did take Newton's theory of gravity to be law even though it couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t describe everything (eg. 3 large objects interacting with each other) and was later replaced by EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s theory of gravity. If you do not take the bible literally then why do you believe in a great flood and NoahÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ark as being real but not things such as seven day creationism or the Earth is only a few thousand years old? Even if you do take days to be era's you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain things such as light and dark on the first ear but the sun was created on the fourth era. The sun is what gives us light and dark not to mention it took time to create stars so light couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have existed early on in the universe. Also Plants would have been made on the 3rd era but they couldn't survive a whole era until the sun was made on the fourth era. Also why would god need a day for rest and wondering if creation is good; he knows everything and can will anything into existence so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s with the day of rest? I'm not making the mistake of imagining all Christians are literalists; in fact I went to school in an area of overwhelmingly Christian faith. Funny thing was every one of the kids that went to my school didn't believe in the bible literally (however the school required you to be in the top few percent of the state to enter so I guess it filtered out some of the less intelligent people); not one of them believed in the creation story or a global flood. They took the ideas such as being kind and fair over believing the stories as absolute truth. People who believe in NoahÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ark being real and seven day creationists are literalists and my post defended against that instead of moralistic Christians which I couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care less about.

You misunderstood me; the first paragraph was me rambling on about what I would like to imagine, not what the case actually is. As it is, the universe is apparently isotropic and it would be safe to assume the laws of physics is indeed the same everywhere. Also the whole discussion is hypothetical, obviously a pre-requisite for knowing if god exists is a device to actually measure god. Whole sections of science (such as statistics, astronomy, physics, mathematical induction etc) all go on the assumption of an isotropic situation and my question was why god detection couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be any different.