At 7/20/08 02:23 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: Well, since the topic kind of switched to Aliens, I think I should share what the smartest man I have ever met said his opinion on UFO's are.

It is extremely likely that you have met men who are exponentially smarter than the one you describe here. To make up for the (I'll be polite) "creative" ideas explained below, this guy would have had to be the founder of the method of generating any and all prime numbers.

When I asked him about it, he said that a small percent of UFO sightings are actully aliens, but not traditional aliens from other planets, but alternate forms of us from another universe. He said that in a parallel universe, we developed much much earlier that this one, and discovered the technology to travel between universes at will. They also DO look like the 'Greys' because of how they evolved differently from us in their universe, but we both go back to the same origin of life.

This is written as if he is explaining to you the way something IS, not as a theory of the way something MIGHT BE. This should have been your first clue that his story may not be quite on the level. I'll be forgiving and grant the possibility that this is merely the way you are explaining it to us and not the way it was explained to you. Given that, isn't it suspicious that an alternate universe would, by definition and logic, not posses the same origin of life as our own? If these (alternate) beings shared our seed of life. then that would require that our universes were once one and the same and at some point (which would have had to be very far along in the evolutionary process) the universes split from one another and became separate. This opens up a whole new can of worms, but culminates in the logic that even if that were the case, then it would also follow that so many more universes would have developed similarly (perhaps infinitely so) that being visited by one, or a mere handful, or a mere tens of billions of them would be even less likely than being completely overwhelmed by the volume of visitations. If one universe developed that technology, then it goes to follow that several (and likely billions of billions and more) of them did so as well. Then, why would they all look like Greys? Shouldn't some of them look like something else? It becomes an infinite regress that only makes the matter more ridiculous.

The reason they do not make contact is because since there are an infinite amount of alternate universes, what would be the point of making contact with ours, specifically? Think of it this way. The average human sees about a thousand people a day. If you were an alien, what would be the point of stopping every person you saw and learning their life story? It would be extremely time consuming, and if you were either A. Trying to get somewhere specific, or B. Are exploring the area, completely pointless.

If I were to bother to pay a visit to someone's house, I would be likely to communicate with the person who lives there. Granted, there may be reasons why I would not, but given the typical circumstances, it is likely that most people would do the same. My point is that the argument of "why bother" is not a completely invalid reasoning, but it is another shred of evidence that does more to damage the credibility of the story than support it.

The whole 'Anal Probe' issue is their way of navigation. They use the DNA they extract from us to know which universe they are in. Their version of Humanity has a different kind of DNA then ours, and so do all of the other universes they travel to so that DNA type is specific to that universe. They use it as a kind of address to be able to travel effectively where they want.

As explained by other posts, an anal probe is such an inefficient method of gaining genetic evidence that it is a laughable theory for why the said visitors would do it.

And now comes the part where you say, "I was only being sarcastic and it was just misread on the forum because sarcasm does not translate in posts very well." ;)

I think we are manipulating paradigms in dangerous evolutionary leaps more so than we are our physical evolution, but I think that you are right in more ways than you initially suggest. We are "tampering" with the gradual progressions of natural selection by trying to dictate our environment and impose our moral judgment on the planet by doing what we think we "should be doing." We do it to remedy what we think we are doing immorally. We might be right or we might be wrong. OR we might be following a progression that has nothing to do with right or wrong. Who knows? At least we care enough to try to sort that out - whether we accidentally set off the dooms-day device or not, we tried to wrap our heads around it.

I don't think we have seen (just quite yet) the implications of our rapid meddling. We may not see it until we have learned how to fully customize the biological genome (and not just the human variety) or our computers are smart enough to originate ideas and solve problems without being given the instructions how to do so - or maybe even being asked to in the first place.

The best and worst part about technology is that its growth is exponential. If you simplify its time line (and I mean REALLY simplify it) you can assess that basic tools were implemented and used in a time span that can be evaluated in the range of tens of thousands of years (and many of those!). Mechanics then made an appearance to top the technology scale. These dominated for a time period that can be placed over thousands of years. Civilizations developed machines that were (provided the resources fed into them manually) self-powered and these have been around for hundreds of years. Technology gained the ability to compute (that is, perform fundamental calculations more efficiently than humans) within a span of time that can be reasonably measured in decades. So what is the next great advancement? We don't know yet. But it is likely that it will come to light within this span of decades we know as the computer age. It is also likely to help bring about advances that give us the next huge evolution in technology within the span of a few years. Then what? How fast can technology continue to climb and still stay stable within our civilization? Is there an apex? Are we reaching for that summit expecting to grasp a miracle or our ultimate doom?

Sure, our technology has out-gunned our responsibility with it's use since it existed as a rock used to open a coconut (or defeat foes that SHOULD have naturally defeated us in physical battle for survival - be that our man-like enemies or the predators that became our prey on the food chain). It's just that now we can use computers to help us make little statistical projections of just how much damage we are doing and how much more we need to do to help alleviate some of the implications.

At 4/14/07 04:21 PM, DrRobot wrote: do you know how to get the TBPM or TLEN to work?

Are you trying to access tags without data? Of all of my MP3 files, none of them came equipped with a BPM value. The Lengths seem to work for me, though.

The tutorial table is very good to have posted. It is nice to see that here. The information I am having trouble finding is whether or not any "undocumented" support for non-UTF-8-encoded tags exists in ActionScript2.0. I have seen that table published in several places. All of the tables are identical. In the ActionScript 2.0 Dictionary (Macromedia Press) there is mention of tags that are accessible, but not published. In the Flash 8 help manual, the same table is available, but is accompanied by a note that explains that "only UTF-8 encoded tags are supported" and does not seem to include any additional tags. The ID3 website does not list the four-character reference names (that I could locate, anyway) and does not specify a full table of implementation.

The tag(s) I am trying to find support for in Flash (8, AS2.0) is the one that contains the album artwork. Is there a way to read this into a Flash script? If so, is there an additional tag that resides in ID3 that contains the information about that image, such as height, width, etc.? If not, I am sure the image would have its own metadata containing that information, but it would be much easier to work with if that was available in an ID3 tag. I may be searching for nothing here if Flash really does not support ANY non-UTF-8 encoded ID3 tags.

So, then, does AS3 support it? If so... looks like I'll be pinching pennies until I can afford the update.

I find Pastafarianism absolutely hilarious. Perhaps that is due, in large part, to the fact that I do not feel that the concept threatens the integrity of the things in which I do or do not believe.

Having read the entire referenced page and sitting through two-thirds of that video, I realized that not one stance on any issues was specifically addressed. Based on what I saw, the entire platform is excessively vague and specifically indecisive. Even the grandstanding proved enigmatic as to the position this politician takes on any issue. I realize that this tactic is favorable in any election, but it is so prevalent here that it actually detracts from the credibility of the candidate. I'm sure digging deeper might reveal some platform positions, but it does not seem as if this candidate is eager enough to commit to a position strongly enough to make a positive impact as a leader. It appears as if he is either trying to hide an ignorance of the issues or a potentially unpopular position on them.

At 12/5/07 09:35 PM, Christopherr wrote: I'd say yes. If a baby boy was raised from a test tube outside it's mother's womb is conscious, then I guess the same would go for a consciousness that was also borne of artificial means.

I completely agree with that, except that an incubated life form is not the same as a synthesized one. An incubated life form, as is a test tube baby, requires that the constructs of "life" are obtained (by some point of origin) from a natural, biological source. Neither the egg nor the sperm are synthesized. In this case. humans did not invent the system, only provided an environment in which the elements could converge and mature.

Now, if humans were to build the same system using "raw materials" instead of those extracted from a prepared host (or from a stem of predetermined biological mechanisms), then the experiment might take on a different character.

At 12/7/07 08:53 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/7/07 08:39 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 12/6/07 10:12 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

It's a book, go read it. Hell I even gave you the page number.

That's quite a weak argument. You can't provide proof, I'm sure you probably just copied and pasted it from an anti-Mormon website.

Let's considering that exhibit inapplicable.

Otherwise I'm going to start doing stuff like this:

Albert Einstein, Why bcdemon is dumb, pg 177
"bcdemon is hella lame. He has deficient mental capacities because paint thinner was mixed into his formula when he was a toddler."


Oh source?

It's a book, go read it. Hell, I even gave you the page number.

It appears to have come from here.

In defense of you both, this passage was immediately sourced by a copy-and-paste Google search, so the source was pretty easy to find - along with plenty of alternate references to provide more research into the argument. Also, it appears to have been sourced from an anti-Mormonsim Web site as this provided a near word-for-word match of the original reference in this forum.

By the by...

I did find the 20q site. It needs a LOT more teaching (with honest answers) but it is really fun!

whilst there is evidence that says animals have consciousness, I have to wodner if these animals that show it are isolated in their ability to do so. Has there been any tests done to indicate whether conciousness is displayed in ALL of a species?

The only way that this would be possible would be to test every individual creature within a species. That would include the ones in a comatose state, near death, newly born, etc... Besides that, you can't test for consciousness. We don't even know what consciousness is much less how to test for it. As for those species that we suspect may have (not consciousness, but) higher cognitive function, we base this inference on the observation of an isolated group of test subjects (and an addition group of control subjects). While it is possible that our observations may be skewed in that, by pure coincidence, we happened to have selected the rare exceptions to the rule (that is that the test subject is unique and does not share these traits with any fellow species members), it is staggeringly improbable, particularly when the results repeat themselves in subsequent studies. All we can do is study and make the best inferences we can. We have been wrong before.

By the way, do you know of an online 20q site? I have played with the handheld version and it is not very good. I am sure that one running on a more capable system would be much more fun.

Most would argue that a shrimp is alive... we could be wrong... but I would not be so quick to discount the possibility that shrimp possess consciousness. Since we don't understand what consciousness actually is we should be cautious not to assume what does or does not possess it. For all we know, it could be discovered that rocks possess consciousness. As unlikely as any of this may seem (or be) it is still something that we can't answer to any degree of certainty. Thus, the question is - if we (ever) discover what constitutes consciousness and then become able to replicate it by artificial means, what are the implications?

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from maintaining the discussion about what is and is not consciousness. Actually, I am really enjoying the ideas and viewpoints that have been proposed. I think absolutely everyone who has pitched-in on this subject has brought up some valid and interesting food for thought. I'd still like to hear more about what you all think of the implications of manufactured consciousness whether it is definable, possible or even theoretically disqualified.

I do not believe that humans are "in control" of the planet. I think, in fact that this species actually has some of the poorest "control" over itself and other resources that exist around the globe. Still, I don't think that it matters what "control" or domination any organism does or does not have that should constitute a defined consciousness. If a theoretical organism were to exhibit the ability to manipulate the world in a way that is beyond human comprehension (let's say that this is done by telekinesis for example) and uses this ability to assert more "impact" on the world than humans, then does that then make the theoretical organism conscious and humans not? Would that organism then have the "authority" to judge humans as beings without consciousness, "awareness" or whatever you might want to call it? What if it was revealed that the organism was responsible for the "creation" of humans? Would that organism then have such authority?

I am not trying to imply that humans were a result of alien seeding or even that telekinesis is a good example of a "higher" consciousness. I'm just saying that I don't think that the human definition of consciousness is going to exclude very much as we get nearer to understanding what constitutes the very concept. We are barely beyond the recognition of "alive" or "dead" in our observations, but it is considerable in our evaluations. We could call it a day at that, but we can't ignore such things as sleep states, gestation, comas and the like.

As for actions taken by humans that supercede the self... oh my!

Humans seem to do some really selfless and amazing things to benefit the non-self. I use the word seem because I strongly believe that there is absolutely no action - and no exception - that constitutes an act of selflessness. I have stated in other posts what I mean by this specifically, so I will not explain it here unless asked to, but it boils down to my answer to the argument that humans are capable of making choices that are not self-preserving/self-motivated/etc... I am not arguing that we are or are not completely logical beings in our complexity, nor am I saying that we do or do not exist by predetermined forces. I am just suggesting that there is nothing we are capable of achieving that is not selfish, no matter how benevolent or sacrificial it may seem.

I am all for people choosing to eat what they do for whatever reason they feel is valid. My only caveat is that that person needs to be aware of the health implications of the choice he or she has made. That goes for everyone! Carnivores (or omnivores) need to make sure that the chosen diet does not provide too many unhealthy portions of those nutrients that are unique to flesh. It seems that a lot of people are very aware of their fat, meat protein, etc... intake, but a lot are not. Conversely, I have known many vegans (and some vegetarians) who decided that, out of pricipal, they would forfeit all flesh and animal-derived foods like milk and eggs with no exception. A couple of these people were able to maintain a normal bill of health as compared to their omnivorous conterparts, but the majority of them suffered from severe nutritional deficiencies and imbalances and often found themselves in a near-constant state of ill health (perpetual colds/headaches/weak muscles/bladder malfunctions/infections/etc...). Some overcame these symptoms by taking natural and artificial dietary suppliments. Others began an onslaught of non-prescription and prescription drugs to diffuse the symptoms. A few of my friends just went back to an omnivorous diet to escape the problems. The point is, there are many ways to stay healthy, no matter what you decide to or not to eat (provided that it is food, of course) and a lot of those do not require you to compromise the beliefs that are important to you. Choose thoughtfully and plan your diet according to your nutritional needs - ALL of them.

Although slightly off-topic, I think it is better served here than a separate thread...

Videos of that sort are likely biased in one direction or another. I do think that they are noteworthy in that they may spark interested viewers into doing more research into topics that they may find disturbing or unusual. Even if the video does not portray Mormonism very accurately (shame on the producers, really) it still may stimulate interest in learning more about what Mormonism is all about for better or for worse.

The off-topic part of this post is this link to a Wikipedia listing on another religion:

Xenu and Scientology

This listing may not be 100% accurate either, but it may spark some interest in the subject for someone who finds it hard to believe that any human would buy into Scientology. The more you research about it, the more you may learn how people do get drawn in. I encourage you to conduct your own research and find references on your own - the link above is just one starting point.

Similarly, the video posted by the OP may startle you and it may not be accurate, but doesn't it make you want to know more about the subject? I may not agree that people should conjure up propaganda or highly weighted deceptive media, but I do agree that when encountered or suspected, it is a great thing for viewers to find out more from other sources and formulate a stronger educated viewpoint.

At 12/4/07 08:16 PM, Lindione wrote: Marketing can be evil, but it also has its benefits. It... ...is ok or good.

Removing marketing would just be another step towards socialism since it would remove a vital element of capitalism.. which is bad

Key point! This point coupled with a critical view and reaction can help steer marketers toward more open and honest representations of the "thing" (I know, I hate that word too) being marketed. If deceptive marketing is more recognized and people do not respond as the deceptive marketers want them to, then some changes would have to be made to appeal to those who see through the deception. Unfortunately, this also encourages the marketers to develop strategies that may be even more deceptive and subtle in order to stay one deceptive step ahead of the educated demographic.

Technology certainly helps deceptive marketers develop these progressive strategies. Although I adore Flash - it has helped the malevolent marketers by leaps and bounds. I don't blame Flash - that responsibility lies solely in the hands of the deceptive marketers who use the tool for their purposes - but I use it as a technological example of how progressive deception techniques are becoming easier to develop. I hope that Flash continues to grow and offer what it does despite what people may do with it.

At 12/4/07 12:52 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Sure, in the same way that death is the source of people dying. You CAN'T get marketing away, although it's displeasing to see the increased market of life.

I am really not sure what you have said here. I think you said that you can't escape marketing. I disagree. It may be hard to escape being marketed to or becoming exposed to propaganda, etc. Still, you can educate yourself to become aware of the techniques of these forms of communication and develop a critical/skeptical eye for it. One of the foremost ways these methods of coersion account for any success is to reach the target who is unaware of the tactic.

Let's say that a television viewer sees an ad for a weight loss suppliment. According to the ad, the "National Weight Loss Research Advisory" has clinically proven that the advertised product "burns twice as much fat" as a competing product. To the viewer, this seems credible since the product is endorsed by an authoritative council that has conducted a scientific comparison between one product and another. What the viewer is not aware of is that the "National Weight Loss Research Advisory" is a division within the marketing department of the product's manufacturer. It consists of three marketing staffers who conducted a real, but unobjective (and loaded), experiment in which they skewed the results so that their product did what they wished to claim that it did. They did it in such a way that the ad campaign could be worded the way that it was and remain (technically) accurate but excessively misleading. The viewer, unaware of this tactic, has made a decision to buy and use this product based on the claims of the ad campaign. What happens next does not matter. Maybe the product is great. Maybe it is terrible.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly, that "marketing" is one of the most powerful means of manipulation of all societies on this planet. I would, however, maintain that there are many subtleties and strategies that separate one type of "marketing" from another. Some of these distinctions include propaganda, indoctrination, revisionism and bribery. You are absolutely right that these tactics reveal a sickening facet of our social habits, but I think that it is equally important to understand the many different ways in which coersion is practiced for a better self-fortification against attacks on our integrity.

Okay, I was only snickering until I got to the "naked prisoner pyramid class" line and laughed a little. I had to stop, though, as requested directly by an omen from the giant spaghetti monster.

It looks like this topic is being pulled in two directions. In one direction, the OP simply wants to know if a manufactured "consciousness" has a profound impact in human ideology. In the other direction, some are having a hard time getting past the definition of consciousness based on the mechanics of the host. Unfortunately, everyone's RIGHT!

The original post can't be answered without the results of the mechanical questions. Unless we know what mechanical limit reveals "consciousness" we can't argue about the ideological impact of the mechanism.

Throughout history, humans have placed consciousness (by many varying definitions) in several locations throughout the mechanism of the human body. For a significant portion of our history it was believed that the heart contained the seat of our soul and the source of our emotions. Based on this belief, we would have argued that if we replaced the human heart with an artificial one, we would alter the consciousness and destroy the soul. The same thoughts have been promoted about the eyes, and now, the brain (and various elements thereof).

Quantum physicists have done some amazing research to reveal some really spectacular phenomenon in particles and how we observe them. Much of this research centers around on the "actuality" of reality and how the brain interprets (or possibly FABRICATES) the mass of data that bombards it on a constant basis. As much as these physicists and neuroscientists have established, they are still 100% clueless as to what constitutes our "consciousness" and what "consciousness" really even is to begin with. It is all still purely philosophical.

That being said, the OP has a valid question - and those caught up in the mechanics have a valid point. So...

...what's my stance? My stance is that I'm too caught up in the search for consciousness that I can't offer any sort of valid opinion. However, if humans found the elusive source of the human consciousness and were able to artificially reproduce this - and the results were evaluated to reveal some communicative evidence of self-awareness - then the question may be best posed to the consciousness that was created before the creators draw any conclusions.

Incidentally, I am not so thrilled about the use of the word "metal" to describe the theoretical mechanism for artificial consciousness. I think it suggests a simplicity that has been outmoded since the bad sci-fi of the 1960's. I like (adore) the topic, I would just like to see it taken in a more plausible and contemporary direction.

I am a little unsure how to read some of the responses to the topic. A large number of you have indicated that you are "independant" in your party association. Those responses typically included more discussion about not feeling any particular loyalty to any party.

My question is:

Do you mean that you do not feel loyalty toward the democratic or republican parties and so choose to associate with the independant party as an alternative, or do you mean that you do not associate with any party, including the independant party, thus meaning that you are non-partisan?

My voter registration card is emblazoned with the word "unafiliated" in the party declaration section. It has been called "non-partisan", "declined party affiliation", etc... but I have always been very careful to avoid having it listed as "independant". Likewise, I hope that everyone here realizes that the independant party is, indeed, a political affiliation with a separate and deliberate set of platforms and agendas just like the two majority parties, the lesser-acknowledged green party and others as well. The reason that it is so important to be aware of this is because when it comes time to vote, many ballots include shortcuts for voters to select all candidates from a party in one fell swoop. You do not have to confirm specific selections. In other words, you could be throwing away your vote if you are not paying enough attention to the ballot (and we have seen this before!!!!) or, worse yet, voting specifically and unintentionally for someone with radically opposing viewpoints to the issues you feel strongly about.

I agree with those of you who proclaim that candidates (and parties) have a wide variety of "good" and "bad" views on certain issues. Not one party has it nailed down and not one party has it all wrong. Dissent amongst politicians within a single party is not uncommon, so we know that there is a world of subtlety that needs attention. There are no absolutes and I do not feel that affiliating with any specific political party is the best way to make forward progress in this country. Unfortunately, I do not think that enough people are willing to challenge the disadvantages that haunt any political party and will continue to vote according to a bipartisan system simply to avoid the following scenario:

Neither the democratic nor republican candidate have established their value as a leader to a voter we'll call "Chris". Chris does, however, feel that the green party candidate shows the most potential as a leader that would champion the issues that matter the most. As Chris does more research, it also becomes apparent that the democratic candidate (please note that the choice to use this party for the example was purely an alphabetical decision) supports some views that Chris feels would put this nation in serious jeopardy and decides that the worst outcome to this election would be realized if that candidate won. On election day, Chris votes for the green party candidate. Later that day, the election results show that the democratic candidate won by a very narrow margin. Exit polls indicated that a lot of the republican votes were cast for the green party candidate due to some opposing views on environmental issues, but if just a few of those had gone in favor of the republican candidate, the winner would have been different. Analysis later showed that the green party candidate was buried in the landslide of established partisan voting despite the slight republican stray vote, but eventually helped the democratic candidate land the victory. Chris is not thrilled that the green party candidate did not win, but is furious that the country will be presided over by the candidate of least appeal - and that the green party vote actually helped make this happen.

This is why the two-party system is so hard to dilute. The more ridiculous and dangerous each party gets (and they BOTH do!) the more ridiculous and dangerous our nation becomes. It is very difficult to turn the tides - but I am glad to see that more people seem to be thinking out of party boundaries these days.

Keep up the good thinking!

At 11/26/07 10:36 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/25/07 03:24 PM, dELtaluca wrote: on another note, doesn't entanglement not obey light speed laws? Im sure i read about experiments done that show that the effects of entanglement are faster acting than light speed?

;
After reading A16200's response on light speed , where a craft is going the speed of light & it turns on a forward light, wouldn't that move quicker.
His comments seem to support that that would not be the case.
So I went checking around the net.
I found an experiment where scientsts sent a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas, the pulse of light reaches speeds of 300x the normal speed of light.

So even though we know the universe isn't filled with caesium gas, If light can actually go faster than its normal speed under the experiments conditions... maybe there are other ways/conditions that have yet to be discovered that could eventually be used for interstellar travel at much faster rates of speed than light speed.

In this article (posted link near the front of this topic) it explains that it is not the light itself that is travelling FTL. It reports that the pulses are preceded by a "tail" that clues the cesium as to what is coming. It seems that the process creates a reaction that surpasses the speed of light, but not anything with mass.

"Relativity" is a term that sometimes gets forgotten or taken for granted. If it seems like nonsense to think that observing an object that is travelling FTL (or close to it, etc...) then it may help to consider the ridiculous effects of the propagation of sound waves. The Doppler effect, sonic booms and operational silence (as can be observed when vehicle engines seem to go silent relative to the pilot at supersonic speeds) are a clue as to some of the observable effects that can be expected upon approaching the speed of light. Still, light is a whole different animal than sound is. As spectacular as the effects of breaking the sound barrier are, we should (and do) have some pretty lofty expectations for what would happen if we broke the light barrier.

To address the OP...

Einstein claims that the more he discovered in physics, the more apparent God became to him. I do not think that it is insignificant that this philosophy was (said to be) held by the father of the theory of relativity...

Although I am an atheist, I do not think that humans will be able to find a way to disprove the existence of God. Whatever evidence may tarnish the credibility of any organized religion or text. the very concept of religion is far from being in jeopardy. Some zealots will deny science. Some scholars will shun religion. Some people will do their damnedest to marry the two concepts. The truth is that nobody is right. That's right - EVERYONE is wrong - in some way. We do not know enough to be right about any of it. We have some compelling evidence in our hands either way, but we do not have the impossible - a difinitive answer to everything.

That being said, I think it's okay to be wrong. While we're all here being wrong, we can use our freedom to create things like ridiculous science fiction based on things we know to be absolutely false. Why not? It's still fun. We can also speculate about the "truth" we don't know much about (or anything?). We can call the unknown anything we like and have faith in what we think we know (in science or religion). We can keep doing research to build on the one universal human language - mathematics. We can do a lot and make a lot of progress toward the Infinite Mystery.

In Rockville, MD:

It is illegal to remove a public building by writing on it.

This, of course, is directed at cartoon characters who draw escape holes on walls with some type of marker. The full text of the law includes other forms of destruction, but specifically addresses the case of writing.

Incidentally, Jerry Mouse has spent a fortune in fines for using this method to elude Tom the Cat.

At 11/16/07 05:01 PM, fli wrote:

At 11/16/07 11:37 AM, BrotherJohn wrote: If we don't take a stand for ourselves, then we will soon find that although we are still well within the scope of the constitution, we are a severely oppressed people. We might be "better off" that way, but what sort of quality of life do you think that would impart?

I don't know if you're sarcastic...
but guess who voted on these laws?

People like me.

This is why I am asking you to carefully consider a scope that goes your personal convenience. You do not have to have any compassion toward those who do something that you do not approve of, but you have a responsibility to yourself to protect your own way of life. You also have the power to help think of new and better ways to do things that benefit everyone. I know that you are smart and capable, because you are here contributing some excellent points in this discussion - see below:

This isn't a "big government" situation because I think non-smokers just got fed up when we couldn't savor our food because we're smelling nasty ass smoke. We want to go to social night functions without smelling like smoke at the end of the night.

Unfortunately, when legislation is involved (of ANY sort) it is a governmentally-involved situation. You should be aware of everything - big or small - that your representatives are representing and your legislators are legislating because every tiny detail affects you and your future.

However, I think we ought to be fair too.
Allow some areas designated for smokers, you know. Which need to be a wide open place that's far away from non-smoking areas. (An outdoor cannopied patio, or up-stairs smoke room are good ideas.)

That's somewhat how it is now, and if not, I am wholeheartedly willing to give my business to proprietors who choose to do these things. I think your take on this solution is extremely fair and should be considered by proprietors who want to maximize their profits and cater to everyone possible. If not a single proprietor catered in some way to my preferences, then I would most certainly have an incredible idea of what sort of business I could start and make a fortune with...

Otherwise... I think the right for air is greater than the right to smoke.

I agree with you 100%! Some may not, and they wouldn't be wrong, but I happen to agree with you. Even though I do, I still would not choose to have legislators drag us to one extreme. As you stated above, there is a compromise solution and we, as a society, are fully capable of realizing this without having our hands tied by the government.

I can't simply escape from a person who's smoking, at least not in the same room. But a smoker can always smoke at home, or other areas of privacey.

Why can't you escape? Does someone lock you in the room? Does the smoker chase you around when you leave? DId someone threaten you that some harm would come your way if you did not give your business to that particular proprietor?

I'll be frank...

Businesses that choose not to allow smoking in their establishment annoy me very much. I don't give my business to them. Sometimes (due to local laws) the business and all of those around them have no choice but to enact a smoking ban in the establishment. Now imagine the inverse. In the first case, you may be annoyed at some businesses, but you have a choice and you may or may not exercise that choice. In the second situation, your choice is to visit an establishment that is guaranteed to be filled with annoying, disgusting smoke and your only alternative is to go home because that is where the government told you is the only place you can legally go to escape the smoke. I prefer to let people have some choices. The government needs to butt out and let people decide some things for themselves - AND - businesses need to consider their bottom line by accommodating more people - smokers and non-smokers. If they don't, someone else will and get their lost business.

I agree with you fli, there need to be choices and it does not seem that difficult to handle.

At 11/17/07 03:35 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/16/07 11:24 AM, BrotherJohn wrote:

This logic suggests that it should be illegal for you to operate an automobile.

Auto mobiles only cause harm a fraction of the time.
Smoking always does damage, every time a cigarette is lit.

Smoking and breathing second-hand smoke increases your RISK of cancer, heart and lung disease. With limited exposure, your body can combat and recover from the effects of smoke very quickly and completely. However, even with limited exposure, the RISK persists that you could have a serious health problem without any "build-up" over time.

Now let me tell you a story about an automobile accident I was in. I was driving home from work just after sundown. I was on a highway and was obeying all of the traffic laws. An elderly driver, who was stopped at a stop sign on a tributary street suddenly floored it and popped right out in front of me while I was travelling a a speed of 40 mph. Even though I drove within the safe limits as determined by the law, I landed in the hospital with a shattered sternum, multiple broken ribs on both sides of my chest cage and bruising all over my limbs, neck and torso. My car was totalled, I had broken through the seat belt and I lost a lot of work and money over this ordeal as well as had to put up with those injuries for a very long time. Thankfully, the other driver escaped with no more than a bruised hip.

As posted above the quoted post, I was not driving usafely, I was driving as expected. I got in my car that night and assumed the risks of driving and I did my best to avoid the unexpected. We need to be responsible citizens and assume reasonable risks even though others might be the ones to endanger us unintentionally.

As our smoking laws have been (that is, not exclusive) we all have the opportunity to avoid risk within reason, which is much more than can be said about driving an automobile. If reasonable compromise is not afforded, then we will soon find ourselves with laws not unlike one where you can't drive a car because you risk exposing another citizen to injury of some kind.

Rules are okay! Let's just keep them within reason and make sure legislators don't use them to your dismay.

It is true that if you do not graduate from high school, or you don't go to college, or you don't earn an undergraduate degree, or you don't get a master's degree or (whatever) you will have doors closed on you. You can limit your opportunities by living in one city or another. You can be turned down from a job for having less experience than the employer would prefer...

Still, having only a GED as your educational certification does not disqualify you from being successful. You may find that you have to work harder and apply more of yourself to gain success, but you most certainly can achieve success.

Even if you earn a degree or (whatever) you are not entitled to a certain salary or guaranteed to make even a living wage.

I think that it is more of a shame that because one candidate is a woman and another is a race other than cauccasion, neither are likely to win the popular vote due to these traits - even in the "progressive" times we live in now.

Some people will vote favorably for them due to this fact. Others will specifically vote against them for the same reason. Still more will vote in "random" directions based on their stance on the issues these candidates address.

It is still up in the air as to what the outcome will be. This election is fueled by so many accelerated issues that just about anything could happen. Although it is the best time for the democratic party to offer minorities as their top choices (based on dissent for the republican party and a staggeringly low approval rating for the current republican president) it may be the democrat's ultimate undoing in the election. One of the few things that could throw the election for democrats is to risk offering candidates that would automatically lose majority votes based on nothing more than their race or gender. Majority votes traditionally outfavor minority votes by a landslide, but given the tightness of the issues and opinions, we will just have to wait and see if the factors balance or not.

To get back to the topic... yes, these candidates will receive votes based on physicality alone. They will also lose votes for the same reason and, if trends do not change, the lost votes will heavily outweight the gained votes. It is going to be a struggle.

No.
It isn't unconstitutional to ban smoking at businesses.

You are absolutely right. It is not unconstitutional for our government to legislate such things. This is why it is that much more important for us, as a society, to make sure we don't allow our government to stifle our ability to keep legislation reasonable and fair. If we allow loopholes to weaken our power over legislation and tempt ourselves into relenquishing our priviledges, we will find that our rights are no longer our concern at all.

If we don't take a stand for ourselves, then we will soon find that although we are still well within the scope of the constitution, we are a severely oppressed people. We might be "better off" that way, but what sort of quality of life do you think that would impart?

At 11/16/07 03:13 AM, lumpypaint wrote: oh i dont know, you might as well ask why lighting a building on fire is illegal.

answer: Because it is hazardous to your own and everyone elses health and it causes very expensive damage.

This logic suggests that it should be illegal for you to operate an automobile. If everything is cut-and-dried black or white, then the absolute is the whole of the law. A moving car is an immediate threat to other humans. A stationary car that is running is a costly pollutant-spewing planet destroyer that consumes valuable resources to operate.

Compromise is a requirement. Tolerance must be endured by all, not some.

The question you ask perfectly illustrates my point. Why is it illegal to light a building on fire? It's not. Arson is illegal. Lighting a building on fire is only illegal if it is arson. Destroying a building with explosives is only illegal if it is an act not scheduled and conducted by the proper authorities. Taking the life of another human being is only illegal if it is murder, not if it is a sanctioned execution or an act of warfare.

There are exceptions - legal ones - to nearly every rule you may first think is absolute. As a culture, we require these exceptions in order to resolve some compromise.

Just get a prescription for painkillers that isn't high, and it will have the same dulling, but not crippling, effect as pot. The best drug for recovery is no drug.

Every human has a unique body chemistry. You can't generalize like that. I heavily sympathize with those folks who are undergoing rigorous chemotherapy treatments to rid themsleves of cancer. That is a terrible, but often necessary and exclusive treatment for their illness. The symptoms of the chemotherapy are devastating. Without the assistance of additional suppliments, patients suffer from a number of debilitating symptoms that can have even more serious and damaging side-effects. Most of these symptoms can be combatted effectively with THC... natural... not produced artificially by a drug conglomerate that has any bottom line in mind.

I have had broken bones, etc... prescribed painkillers either don't do their job or they cause side-effects that are less tolerable than the pain they are intended to kill. That's just me. I have a different body chemistry than you do.

lets take this in perspective that people who dont do mj because its illegal, thierfor if it was legalized they would have nothing holding them back from trying some, i mean its bad enough having all of these dumbasses spending all thier cash and stealing just because they need a fix. now you want to add to that? thats just stupid on so many levels. yeah beer is legal but people dont usually steal shit to sell to buy thier beer.

I am not sure if this is true where you are or if you are simply unaware of the sorts of crimes that go on around you, but here in the United States, people rob, con and kill for alcohol money. They do it for marijuana, heroin, cigarettes, dogs, bikes, sex, status... so many things. If your point is that illegality keeps crime incidents lower, it does not. Crime rates are not the reason that marijuana is kept illegal. Legislators are more aware of the elevated crime rates from keeping weed illegal than you give them credit for. A few moronic legislators make for a great distraction from those who still want it illegal but don't want to confess to the reasons they wish to keep it that way.

I think it will be ages before we see any progress on the legality issue. The same hope and rumors have washed over us for decades. Nothing is different yet.

Pfizer could change everything in a matter of days if the company so chose, but they wouldn't do that. They already have more than enough power, knowledge and influence. What they do not have, however is a motive.