likearock

Alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are all drugs. Or were you just talking about illegal drugs?

The ironic part was that the riots started amid cries for "justice". From http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/kingarrests.html here is Rodney King's arrest record: No matter what he did, there is still no excuse for the amount of brutality we all saw on that tape. While that doesn't justify the riots, it was definitely cause for the black community to be pretty pissed.

Would you say the same thing if you were paying for bandwidth and disk space?

I find it scarier to think that Al Qaeda simply will watch what's happening now and learn from it. It's been shown that AQ likes to take its own sweet time. Years from now, after NO is rebuilt, they would then strike: (Quote taken from billvon in another thread) A night strike could take people unawares and lead to a disaster on the level of a nuclear bomb. That's not a farfetched scenario if they simply rebuild NO without seriously addressing its vulnerability to flooding.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/video/3204/i02.html

We could always do what they did after the Galveston hurricane. Pretty costly though.

I'm a slow packer.

I agree 100%. I made no such claim. There was only one assertion made between the two of us concerning the existence of God: Your assertion. Your burden of proof.

It is not my job as a non believer to prove there is no God, the responsibility to prove there is one, lies with the believers. Actually it is. That's the difference between the atheist and agnostic view. If you categorically claim that God does not exist, the lack of proofs substantiating God's existence is irrelevant, you need to provide positive proofs of that non-existence. Otherwise, your statement is as vacuous as, "there are no lifeforms in the Universe based on silicon."

More than one answer? Is light a wave or a particle? One answer, Light does show all the behaviour of waves with reflection, refraction and diffraction but it does show particle properties with black-body radiation and the photoelectric effect. This is known as the wave-particle duality.. Is God a man or a woman?

More than one answer? Is light a wave or a particle?

I'm pro choice, and I wouldn't be sad to see Roe overturned. I think it's pretty crummy law, actually. I'd much rather see abortion rights given a firmer footing than the (easily attacked by lawmakers) nebulous penumbra rights. In a way, a lot of pro-life politicians are actually protected by Roe vs. Wade. If it's overturned and they actually start passing laws severely restricting abortion, some of them might get an unexpected reaction from the electorate.

I think in general people are only "willing" to believe such things with "no evidence at all" when those things pretty much go along with their own underlying beliefs. For example, I expect that if "his religion" told a devout christian in the USA that child molestation was a good thing, he'd be unlikely to accept that on blind faith. And yet, if "your religion" does tell you to do things that you would not normally want to do, that would make it more likely that there was real entity to it external to yourself. That's why the story of God commanding Abraham to kill his son is so powerful. On the other hand, if "your religion" always tells you to do things that you would normally believe, it's very hard to prove empirically that "your religion" is not just an extension of your own thoughts and feelings.

There's a link below the viewer to download it directly. It says "problemen met bekijken, download het hier." You could try that.

As they say, headup is easier to learn but harder to master than headdown. The thing you find out about headdown, once you get it, is how easy it is to go wherever you want really fast. Try doing that in headup. To me the real test of how good your headup is would be: can you chase a headdown flier going full out? I know I'm nowhere near that myself.

I'd never say it wasn't possible. I just think that it's erroneous to point to the advances in computer technology and say we're on our way to AI. We would need a huge technological breakthrough before we could even start talking about representing consciousness in such a way that it can replicated and transmitted precisely, the way we can with images and sounds. Wayne

Good question! And if we knew the answer to that we'd be in a much better position to talk about downloading thoughts and real artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, we know very little compared to what we'd need to know. We're very good at simulating that part of the world in which we understand pretty well the rules of the game. For instance, how air pressure effects weather. Or how explosions can be represented by differential equations. We just don't know the rules yet for how the mind does its thing. I think it's the same problem. Once you've cracked the secret of how the physical impulses of the brain and nervous system map to actual thoughts and feelings, you can do both. However, in spite of our great advances in understanding and mastering other parts of the anatomy and even the non-conscious parts of the nervous system, the brain itself is elusive. Maybe, as someone said, there's just something paradoxical about trying to understand the very instrument of understanding itself. Wayne

We don't know how to tell what a woman is thinking now....How does that change anything? Admit it Ron, that's the real reason you want this stuff to work! Wayne

I think the biggest problem is not computer speed or I/O ports but how the hell you can even represent thoughts or feelings in a digital manner. No one really has a clue on how to do that. The advances in hardware will make for better video games and more accurate weather forecasts but it will take a breakthrough of an entirely different kind to achieve a downloadable mind. Wayne

You main does not effect the way you fly while in freefall. Sparky While in freefall - you are Falling not Flying Then you ain't doing it right! Wayne

Exactly. The USPA could also have some kind of canopy coach certification to formalize the process and put more capable people out there. Sounds like an excellent idea. The only possible problem, as Hooknswoop pointed out, a lot of people don't go any further than the A license and would miss out on the course. It's getting better defined every day. To me it's clear that mandated education would be a much easier pill to swallow than mandated WL restrictions. Wayne

Maybe they're not perfect, but at least it's a start. Certainly better than nothing. Regardless, all three groups would benefit from canopy control courses. Is there any question that such courses should become mandatory steps towards getting a USPA license? Wayne

This thread was not posted to start a discusion but rather to prove a preconcieved opinion. Or maybe it was just a troll. Seven pages, not bad! Wayne Hmmm... has a troll failed in its objective if its post results in a thoughtful and interesting discussion rather than flames and a locked thread? Since trolls are mainly judged by the number of responses they get, the last thing a troller wants is a locked thread. I think it's telling that the OP just threw the meat out and sat back. Wayne

This thread was not posted to start a discusion but rather to prove a preconcieved opinion. Or maybe it was just a troll. Seven pages, not bad! Wayne

The lifestyle is a choice. Don't confuse being gay with adopting the lifestyle. You don't have to be gay to engage in the lifestyle and a lot of people who are gay don't subscribe to it. That is, however, the face that is presented to the public at large. Want to change things like public perceptions and attitudes? Make the "lifestyle" the exception rather than the rule (as perceived by the public). People will believe what they want to believe regardless. Nobody should have to prove that they're not a stereotype, whether they're gay, black, or whatever. Wayne